LIBRARY 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


Class 


Unternaticmal 


EDITORS'   PREFACE. 

THEOLOGY  has  made  great  and  rapid  advances  in  recent 
years.  New  lines  of  investigation  have  been  opened  up, 
fresh  light  has  been  cast  upon  many  subjects  of  the  deepest 
interest,  and  the  historical  method  has  been  applied  with 
important  results.  This  has  prepared  the  way  for  a  Library 
of  Theological  Science,  and  has  created  the  demand  for  it. 
It  has  also  made  it  at  once  opportune  and  practicable  now 
to  secure  the  services  of  specialists  in  the  different  depart- 
ments of  Theology,  and  to  associate  them  in  an  enterprise 
which  will  furnish  a  record  of  Theological  inquiry  up  to 
date. 

This  Library  is  designed  to  cover  the  whole  field  of  Chris- 
tian Theology.  Each  volume  is  to  be  complete  in  itself, 
while,  at  the  same  time,  it  will  form  part  of  a  carefully 
planned  whole.  One  of  the  Editors  is  to  prepare  a  volume 
of  Theological  Encyclopaedia  which  will  give  the  history 
and  literature  of  each  department,  as  well  as  of  Theology 
as  a  whole. 

The  Library  is  intended  to  form  a  series  of  Text-Books 
for  Students  of  Theology. 

The  Authors,  therefore,  aim  at  conciseness  and  compact- 
ness of  statement.  At  the  same  time,  they  have  in  view 


EDITORS'   PREFACE. 

that  large  and  increasing  class  of  students,  in  other  depart- 
ments of  inquiry,  who  desire  to  have  a  systematic  and  thor- 
ough exposition  of  Theological  Science.  Technical  matters 
will  therefore  be  thrown  into  the  form  of  notes,  and  the 
text  will  be  made  as  readable  and  attractive  as  possible. 

The  Library  is  international  and  interconfessional.  It 
will  be  conducted  in  a  catholic  spirit,  and  in  the  interests 
of  Theology  as  a  science. 

Its  aim  will  be  to  give  full  and  impartial  statements  both 
of  the  results  of  Theological  Science  and  of  the  questions 
which  are  still  at  issue  in  the  different  departments. 

The  Authors  will  be  scholars  of  recognized  reputation  in 
the  several  branches  of  study  assigned  to  them.  They  will 
be  associated  with  each  other  and  with  the  Editors  in  the 
effort  to  provide  a  series  of  volumes  which  may  adequately 
represent  the  present  condition  of  investigation,  and  indi- 
cate the  way  for  further  progress. 

CHARLES   A.   BRIGGS. 
STEWART   D.   F.   SALMOND. 


Theological  Encyclopaedia.  By  CHARLES  A.  BRIGGS,   D.D.,    D.Litt., 

Prof,   of  Theological  Encyclopedia  and 
Symbolics,  Union  Theol.  Seminary,  N.  Y. 

An  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of      By  S.  R.   DRIVER,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  Regius 
the  Old  Testament.  Professor    of    Hebrew,    and    Canon    of 

Christ  Church,  Oxford.      (.Revised  and 
enlarged  edition). 

Canon  and  Text  of  the  Old  Testa-       By  Francis  Crawford  Burkitt,  M.A.,  Lec- 
ment.  turer  in  Cambridge  University. 

Old  Testament  History.  By     HKNRY    PRESERVED     SMITH,    D.D., 

Professor  of  Biblical    History,   Amherst 
College,  Mass.     (Now  ready.) 

Contemporary    History   of  the   Old       By  FRANCIS  BROWN,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  D.Litt., 
Testament.  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Union  Theological 

Seminary,  New  York. 

Theology  of  the  Old  Testament.  By  the  late  A.  B.  DAVIDSON,  D.D.,  LL.D., 

Professor    of    Hebrew,     New    College, 
Edinburgh.     (Now  ready.) 


An   Introduction   to   the    Literature 
of  the  New  Testament. 

Canon  and  Text  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 

The   Life   of  Christ. 


A    History    of    Christianity    in   the 
Apostolic   Age. 

Contemporary  History  of  the  New 
Testament. 

Theology  of  the   New  Testament. 


Biblical  Archaeology. 

The  Ancient  Catholic  Church. 

The   Later   Catholic  Church. 


By  Rev.  James  Moffatt,  B.D. 


By  CASPAR  REN£  GREGORY,  D.D.,  LL.D.t 
Professor  of  New  Testament  Exegesis  in 
the  University  of  Leipzig. 

By  WILLIAM  SANDAY,  D.D.,  LL.D..  Lady 
Margaret  Professor  of  Divinity,  and 
Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxlord. 

By  ARTHUR  C.  MCGIFFERT,  D.D.,  Professor 
of  Church  History,  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  New  York.  (Now  ready.) 

By  FRANK  C.  PORTER,  D  D.,  Professor  of 
Biblical  Theology,  Yale  University,  New 
Haven,  Conn. 

By  GEORGE  B.  STEVENS,  D.D.,  Professor 
"of  Systematic  Theology,  Yale  University, 
New  Haven,  Conn.  (Now  ready.) 

By  G.  BUCHANAN  GRAY,  D.D.,  Professor  of 
Hebrew,  Mansfield  College,  Oxford. 

By  ROBERT  RAINY,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Principal 
of  the  New  College,  Edinburgh.  (Now 
ready.) 

By  E.  W.  Watson,  LL.D.,  Professor  of 
Church  History,  Kings  College,  London. 


The   Greek  and    Oriental   Churches. 

The   Reformation. 

Symbolics. 

History  of  Christian   Doctrine. 

Christian   Institutions. 
Philosophy  of  Religion. 

The   History  of  Religions. 
Apologetics. 

The   Doctrine  of  God. 

The  Doctrine   of  Man. 

The   Doctrine  of  Christ. 

The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Salvation, 

The    Doctrine  of  the    Future   Life. 
Christian   Ethics. 


The  Christian  Pastor  and  the  Work- 
ing Church. 

The  Christian   Preacher. 
Rabbinical   Literature. 


By  W.  F.  ADENEY,  D.D.,  Professor  of 
Church  History,  New  College,  London. 

By  T.  M.  LINDSAY,  D.D.,  Principal  of  the 
United  Free  College,  Glasgow. 

By  CHARLES  A.  BRIGGS,  D.D.,  D.Litt., 
Prof,  of  Theological  Encyclopedia  and 
Symbolics,  Union  Theol.  Seminary,  N.  Y. 

By  G.  P.  FISHER,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor 
of  Ecclesiastical  History,  Yale  University, 
New  Haven,  Conn.  (Revised  and  en" 
large  d  edition.) 

By  A.  V.  G.  ALLEN,  D.D.,  Professor  of 
Ecclesiastical  History,  P.  E.  Divinity 
School,  Cambridge,  Mass.  (Now  ready.) 

By  ROBERT  FLINT,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  sometime 
Professor  of  Divinity  in  the  University  of 
Edinburgh. 

By  GEORGE  F.  MOORE,  D.D.,  LL.D., 
Professor  in  Harvard  University. 

By  the  late  A.  B.  BRUCE,  D.D.,  sometime 
Professor  of  New  Testament  Exegesis, 
Free  Church  College,  Glasgow.  (Revised 
and  enlarged  edition.) 

By  WILLIAM  N.  CLARKE,  D.D.,  Professor 
of  Systematic  Theology,  Hamilton  The- 
ological Seminary. 

By  WILLIAM  P.  PATERSON,  D.D..  Professor 

of  Divinity,  University  of  Edinburg. 
(Author  will  be  announced  later.) 
By  GEORGE  B.  STEVENS,  D.D..  Professor  of 
Systematic  Theology,  Yale   University. 
(Now  ready.) 

(Author  will  be  announced  later.) 

By  NEWMAN  SMYTH,  D.D.,  Pastor  of  Con- 
gregational Church,  New  Haven.  (Re- 
vised and  enlarged  edition. ) 

By  WASHINGTON  GLADDEN,  D.D.,  Pastor 
of  Congregational  Church,  Columbus, 
Ohio.  (Now  ready.) 

(Author  will  be  announced  later.) 

By  S.  SCHECHTER,  M.A.,  President  of  the 
Jewish  Theological  Seminary,  New  York 

City. 


Unternational  GbeolOQical 


EDITED  BY 

CHARLES  A.   BRIGGS,  D.D., 

Edward  Robinson  Professor  of  Biblical  Theology  t  Union  Theological 
Seminary  t  New  York; 

AND 

STEWART  D.  F.   SALMOND,  D.D., 

Professor  of  Systematic  Theology  and  New  Testament  Exegesis^ 
Free  Church  College,  Aberdeen. 


A  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIANITY  IN   THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE. 
BY  ARTHUR  CUSHMAN   McGIFFERT,  PH.D.,  D.D. 


INTERNATIONAL  THEOLOGICAL   LIBRARY 


A  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIANITY 


Df  THE 


APOSTOLIC  AGE 


BT 


ARTHUR  CUSHMAN  McGIFFERT,  PH.D.,  D.D. 

WASHBUBN   PROFESSOR  OF  CHURCH   HISTORY   IN  THK  UNION 
THEOLOGICAL  81MINARY,   MIW   YOBK 


REVISED  EDITION 


Of  THE 

UNIVERSITY 

OF 


NEW  YOKK 
CHARLES    SCRIBNER'S    SONS 

1906 


0 


GENERAL 

COFYRIGHT,  1897,  BY 
CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS 


Co  tfje  f&nnatg  of  mg  JFatfjer 
JOSEPH  NELSON  McGIFFERT,  D.D, 


PREFACE 


THE  scope  of  the  present  volume  is  sufficiently  indi- 
cated by  its  title.  It  has  been  my  endeavor  in  writing  a 
history  of  Christianity  in  the  Apostolic  Age  to  treat  the 
theme  as  a  unit,  and  to  trace  the  development  so  far  as 
possible  in  its  totality.  The  volume  necessarily  contains 
much  that  falls  properly  within  the  province  of  special 
works  upon  New  Testament  literature,  exegesis,  or  the- 
ology ;  for  the  Apostolic  Age  is  the  age  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, and  in  the  pages  of  the  latter  are  found  the 
thoughts  and  deeds  of  the  leading  actors  in  the  history. 
But  it  has  been  my  constant  aim  to  subordinate  all  such 
special  subjects  to  the  common  end,  and  to  deal  with 
them  only  in  so  far  as  they  constitute  a  vital  part  of  the 
larger  whole.  This  aim,  I  hope,  will  serve  to  explain  the 
arrangement  and  to  some  extent  the  selection  of  material. 
At  the  same  time,  there  are  some  matters,  not  vitally 
connected  with  the  development  as  a  whole,  a  discussion 
of  which  is  looked  for  in  a  work  on  the  Apostolic  Age, 
and  which  I  have  not  felt  at  liberty,  in  view  of  the  gen- 
eral purpose  of  the  series  of  which  this  book  forms  a  part, 
to  neglect  altogether ;  and  so  in  the  selection  of  material 
I  have  departed  occasionally  from  my  own  ideal.  But 
even  in  such  cases  the  attempt  has  been  made  to  keep  the 
main  subject  well  to  the  fore,  and  to  let  it  control  the 
entire  treatment. 

Many  of  the  questions  discussed  in  this  volume  have 
been  the  subject  of  controversy  for  generations,  and  the 
most  various  positions  have  of  course  had  their  champions. 
To  state  and  endeavor  to  refute  all  such  divergent  views 

vii 


Viii  PREFACE 

would  have  been  neither  practicable  nor  desirable,  and 
the  temptation  to  enter  into  extended  controversy  which 
presented  itself  at  many  points  has  been  strenuously 
resisted.  My  aim  throughout  has  been  positive  and  not 
negative,  constructive  and  not  destructive. 

Where  the  literature  is  so  voluminous,  and  where  so 
many  of  the  results  of  modern  scholarship  have  long  been 
common  property,  it  is  impossible  to  indicate  or  even  esti- 
mate my  indebtedness  to  others.  But  it  is  hardly  neces- 
sary to  say  that  among  all  the  admirable  books  dealing 
with  the  Apostolic  Age  as  a  whole,  or  with  one  or  another 
phase  of  it,  I  have  found  the  great  work  of  Weizsacker 
(Das  apostolische  Zeitalter  der  christlichen  Kirche),  in 
spite  of  many  radical  and  far-reaching  differences  between 
his  conclusions  and  my  own,  most  helpful  and  suggestive. 
The  two  well-known  books  of  my  friend,  Professor  Ram- 
say (The  Church  in  the  Roman  Empire  and  St.  Paul,  the 
Traveller  and  the  Roman  Citizen),  have  been  found  espe- 
cially valuable  for  the  light  they  throw  upon  the  travels 
of  Paul.  The  recent  monumental  work  on  the  chronology 
of  early  Christian  literature  (Die  Chronologie  der  alt- 
christlichen  Litteratur  bis  Eusebius,  Erster  Band)  by  my 
honored  teacher,  Professor  Harnack,  in  which  he  discusses, 
with  his  characteristic  thoroughness  and  candor,  some  of 
the  literary  questions  that  have  received  attention  in  this 
volume,  came  into  my  hands  after  my  own  book  was  in 
press  and  too  late  to  be  utilized  in  any  way.  This  is  the 
less  to  be  regretted,  as  I  find  myself,  I  am  happy  to  say, 
in  general  agreement  with  Harnack  in  most  of  the  mat- 
ters upon  which  he  touches ;  as  for  instance  in  the  chro- 
nology of  Paul's  life,  in  the  interpretation  of  the  purpose 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  in  the  general  estimate  of 
the  pastoral  Epistles,  in  the  conviction  that  Second  Peter 
is  the  only  really  pseudonymous  work  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, in  the  treatment  of  the  Book  of  Acts  as  based  in 
the  main  upon  trustworthy  sources.  On  the  other  hand, 


PREFACE  IX 

where  Harnaek's  views  differ  from  those  presented  in  this 
volume,  —  as  for  instance,  his  acceptance  of  the  North 
Galatian  theory,  and  of  the  second  imprisonment  of  Paul, 
and  his  rejection  of  the  Ephesian  residence  of  the  Apos- 
tle John,  —  I  find  no  reason,  after  a  careful  study  of  his 
arguments,  to  modify  the  conclusion  which  I  have  already 
expressed. 

To  my  colleagues  in  the  Faculty  of  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  especially  to  Professor  Francis  Brown,  D.D., 
and  to  the  librarian  of  the  Seminary,  the  Rev.  Charles  R. 
Gillett,  I  desire  finally  to  express  my  hearty  and  affec- 
tionate thanks  for  the  generous  assistance  they  have 
rendered  me  in  many  ways. 

ARTHUR  CUSHMAN  McGIFFERT. 

UNION  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY, 
April  15,  1897. 


PREFACE  TO  THE   REVISED  EDITION 

THE  call  for  a  new  edition  of  my  book  has  given  me  an 
opportunity  to  make  a  number  of  changes  and  corrections, 
most  of  which,  however,  are  of  minor  importance  and 
affect  the  form  rather  than  the  substance. 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  purpose  and  scope  of  my 
first  chapter  have  been  misapprehended  in  some  quarters, 
I  desire  to  call  particular  attention  here  to  the  note  on 
p.  1  (which  appeared  in  the  first  as  well  as  in  the  present 
edition),  where  it  is  stated  that  the  chapter  is  "intended 
solely  as  an  introduction  to  the  history  which  follows." 
The  subject  of  my  book  is  not  the  life  and  work  of  Christ, 
which  are  to  be  treated  in  another  volume  of  the  series, 
but  Christianity  in  the  age  of  the  apostles,  and  to  attempt 
to  give  an  account  of  Christ's  life  and  work,  even  in 


X  PREFACE   TO   THE   REVISED   EDITION 

briefest  outline,  would  be  out  of  place.  I  am  well  aware 
of  the  meagreness  and  inadequacy  of  what  I  have  said 
about  Christ,  but  it  was  not  my  aim  to  present  a  finished 
picture  of  Him,  or  even  to  indicate  those  facts  in  His  life 
and  those  features  of  His  character  which  are  most  essen- 
tial in  themselves  and  of  most  permanent  significance, 
but  solely  to  point  out  and  trace  the  origin  of  that  which 
the  church  actually  laid  hold  of  and  built  upon  at  the 
beginning  of  its  career,  and  so  far  as  possible  to  explain 
why  it  did  so.  It  belongs  to  the  later  chapters  of  the 
book  to  exhibit  those  features  in  Christ's  character  and 
work  that  subsequently  received  emphasis  and  so  entered 
into  the  faith  and  life  of  the  church,  but  in  respect  of 
those  matters  also  it  should  be  said  that  they  have  been 
presented  not  in  order  to  an  understanding  of  Christ  Him- 
self, but  in  order  to  an  understanding  of  the  Christians  of 
the  Apostolic  Age,  with  whom,  and  with  whom  alone,  my 
book  deals; 

MARCH  30,  1899. 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  I 

MM 

THE  ORIGIN  OF  CHRISTIANITY 1-35 

1.  Judaism 1 

2.  John  the  Baptist     .        .        .        .        .        .        .        .        9 

3.  Jesus 15 

CHAPTER  II 

PRIMITIVE  JEWISH  CHRISTIANITY 36-112 

1.  The  New  Beginning 36 

2.  Pentecost  and  the  Earliest  Evangelism  ....      48 

3.  The  Life  of  the  Primitive  Disciples        ....      64 

4.  The  Conflict  with  Judaism 81 

5.  The  Widening  Field 93 

CHAPTER  IH 
THE  CHRISTIANITY  OF  PAUL 113-150 

CHAPTER  IV 

THE  WORK  OF  PAUL 151-439 

1.  The  Roman  World 151 

2.  The  First  Three  Years  of  Paul's  Christian  Life      .        .    161 

3.  Paul  in  Syria  and  Cilicia 168 

4.  The  Evangelization  of  Galatia        .        .        .        .        .172 

5.  The  Conflict  with  Judaizers    ......    192 


xii  CONTENTS 

PAOl 

6.  The  Evangelization  of  Macedonia 234 

7.  The  Evangelization  of  Achaia 256 

8.  The  Evangelization  of  Asia 273 

9.  Trouble  in  the  Church  of  Corinth  j        ....  290 

10.  Paul's  Final  Visit  to  Corinth,  and  his  Epistle  to  the 

Romans      . 324 

11.  Paul's  Final  Visit  to  Jerusalem  and  his  Arrest  and  Im- 

prisonment          338 

12.  Paul  in  Rome          .        .        ..'.'.        .        .364 

13.  The  Companions  and  Discipies  of  Paul  .        .        .        .423 

CHAPTER  V 

THE  CHRISTIANITY  OF  THE  CHURCH  AT  LARGE     .        .     440-545 

1.  The  Common  Conception  of  the  Gospel ....    440 

2.  The  Christianity  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews      .         .     463 

3.  The  Christianity  of  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter        .        .    482 

4.  The  Christianity  of  the  Johannine  Writings  .        .         .     487 

5.  The  Radical    Paulinism  of    the   Gnostics  and    Other 

Sectaries    .        . 502 

6.  The  Christian  Life 506 

CHAPTER  VI 

THE  DEVELOPING  CHURCH 546-672 

1.  James  and  the  Church  of  Jerusalem       ....  549 

2.  Peter  and  the  Church  of  Rome 588 

3.  John  and  the  Church  of  Asia 606 

4.  The  Church  and  the  Empire 627 

5.  The  Unity  of  the  Church 636 

6.  The  Developing  Organization                           •        •         .  645 
CHRONOLOGICAL  TABLE       .......         .  673 

INDEX    ......                                      .  C75 


A  HISTOET  OF  CHRISTIANITY  IN  THE 
APOSTOLIC   AGE 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  ORIGIN  OF  CHRISTIANITY1 

IN  attempting  to  explain  historically  the  origin  of 
Christianity,  it  is  necessary  to  take  account  of  two  factors : 
on  the  one  hand,  Judaism,  in  the  midst  of  which  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  was  born  and  bred,  and  whose  influence  he  felt 
throughout  his  life;  on  the  other  hand,  his  own  unique 
religious  personality. 

1.    JUDAISM2 

All-controlling  in  the  religious  thought  and  life  of  the 
Jews  was  their  consciousness  of  standing  in  a  peculiar 
relation  to  the  Covenant  God  of  Israel.  Though  he  was 
the  Creator  and  Lord  of  all  the  world,  he  was  believed, 
not  by  the  prophets  alone,  but  by  the  people  in  general, 

1  It  is  impossible  in  a  volume  on  the  apostolic  age  to  discuss  in  any  ade- 
quate and  thoroughgoing  way  the  subject  of  the  present  chapter.    The  chap- 
ter is  intended  solely  as  an   introduction  to  the  history  which  follows,  and 
it  has  been  my  endeavor  to  confine  myself  exclusively  to  those  features  in 
Judaism  and  in  the  life  and  work  of  Christ  which  seem  to  me  essential  to 
an  understanding  of  the  rise  and  early  development  of  Christianity,  and  to 
treat  them  in  as  summary  a  manner  as  possible.    A  complete  picture  would 
of  course  contain  much,  both  in  the  first  and  third  sections,  at  which  I  have 
not  even  hinted. 

2  See  Schiirer:  Geschichte  des  judischen  Volkes  im  Zeitalter  Jesu  Christi 
(Eng.  Trans.,  A  History  of  the  Jewish  People  in  the  Time  of  Jesus  Christ); 
Wellhausen:  Israelitische  undjudische  Geschichte;  Toy:  Judaism  and  Chris- 
tianity ;  Bruce:  Apologetics,  Bk.  II. ;  O.  Holtzmann  :  Das  Ende  des  judischen 
Staatswesens  und  die  Entstehung  des  Christenthums  (in  Stade's  Geschichte 
des  Volkes  Israel,  Bd.  II.) ;  also  Neutestamentliche  Zeitgeschichte, 

9  1 


2  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE 

graciously  to  have  chosen  from  among  the  nations  of  the 
earth  the  children  of  Abraham  to  be  his  own  peculiar  pos- 
session, and  to  be  the  recipients  of  his  choicest  blessings. 
This  consciousness  of  national  election,  emphasized  even  by 
the  earlier  prophets,  and  growing  ever  more  vivid  since 
their  day,  made  it  impossible  for  a  true  Israelite  to  believe 
that  God  would  ever  forget  and  desert  his  people.  And 
yet  nothing  could  be  plainer  in  the  later  days  of  the  He- 
brew monarchy,  than  that  the  actual  condition  of  Israel 
was  far  from  what  might  be  expected  of  a  people  enjoying 
the  divine  care  and  protection.  Few  evidences  remained 
of  the  presence  and  favor  of  the  Almighty.  He  seemed 
utterly  to  have  forsaken  those  whom  he  had  once  so  sig- 
nally blessed.  But  the  true  Israelite  could  not  believe 
that  he  had  forsaken  them  forever.  It  must  be  that  in 
the  future,  if  not  now,  he  would  again  turn  his  face  in 
favor  upon  his  people  and  bestow  upon  them  in  abundant 
measure  the  blessings  so  long  withheld.  Thus  was  born 
in  Israel  the  Messianic  hope,  the  hope  of  a  better,  brighter, 
happier,  and  more  glorious  future  for  the  Jewish  nation, 
a  hope  that  sustained  them  in  the  darkest  days  of  exile, 
growing  year  by  year  more  vivid  and  controlling. 

But  it  was  not  enough  that  God  would  one  day  bless 
again  his  chosen  people.  Why  had  he  ever  neglected 
them  ?  The  answer  was  not  far  to  seek.  In  that  they 
found  it  and  gave  it  vigorous  utterance,  lay  the  great 
ethical  and  religious  service  of  the  Hebrew  prophets  to 
their  own  people  and  to  all  peoples.  The  God  of  Israel 
is  a  righteous  God,  and  he  cannot  bless  an  unrighteous 
nation.  He  has  chosen  Israel  and  entered  into  covenant 
with  his  elect  people,  but  he  has  covenanted  to  show  them 
favor  and  give  them  prosperity  only  on  condition  that  they 
faithfully  serve  and  worship  him.  Thus  is  explained 
abundantly  God's  desertion  of  his  people,  and  thus,  at 
the  same  time,  is  declared  the  condition  upon  which  alone 
God's  favor  can  be  regained.  It  is  a  remarkable  evidence 
of  the  strength  and  vitality  of  the  national  consciousness 
of  God's  election  that  the  great  prophets,  even  in  the 
darkest  days  of  Israel's  history,  even  when  they  recognize 


THE   ORIGIN  OF   CHRISTIANITY  3 

most  clearly  and  denounce  most  vigorously  the  national 
sins,  never  lose  faith  in  Israel  nor  falter  in  their  convic- 
tion that  the  nation  will  yet  repent  and  work  righteous- 
ness and  enjoy  the  promised  blessing. 

Out  of  the  experiences  of  the  exile  the  returning  Israel- 
ites brought  the  unalterable  conviction  of  the  truth  of  the 
preaching  of  the  great  prophets :  national  apostasy  result- 
ing in  national  disaster;  national  righteousness  securing 
divine  blessing  and  bringing  prosperity,  peace,  and  plenty. 
Apostasy  had  borne  its  legitimate  fruit ;  the  people  were 
now  one  in  their  desire  to  promote  and  maintain  national 
righteousness.  But  righteousness  had  come  to  mean 
something  else  than  it  had  meant  to  the  prophets.  In 
post-exilic  Judaism,  it  was  God's  holiness  or  sanctity  that 
received  especial  emphasis.  It  was  his  separateness  from 
all  that  is  low  and  base,  and  his  transcendent  elevation 
above  things  of  sense,  that  seemed  particularly  to  charac- 
terize him  in  contrast  with  the  gods  of  the  heathen.  It 
was  under  the  influence  of  this  conception  of  God  that 
there  was  developed  the  Levitical  law  in  all  its  cere- 
monial and  ritual  completeness,  —  a  law  which  gave 
clearest  utterance  to  the  national  belief  in  God's  sanctity, 
and  which  aimed  to  raise  the  national  life  above  all  that 
could  corrupt  and  degrade,  and  thus  to  make  the  people 
fit  for  God.  The  purity  aimed  at  by  a  large  proportion  of 
the  Levitical  rites  was  not  so  much  ethical  as  physical. 
Many  natural  objects  and  processes  were  regarded  as 
essentially  impure  and  as  defiling  in  their  influence,  quite 
independently  of  any  fault  or  sin  on  the  part  of  the  person 
affected.  The  result  was  a  tendency  to  lose  sight  of  the 
great  moral  principles  of  human  life  under  the  pressure  of 
the  constant  and  anxious  care  required  to  maintain  cere- 
monial cleanness  and  to  restore  it  when  violated. 

The  law  accomplished  its  purpose  in  so  far  as  it  rendered 
apostasy  and  idolatry  practically  impossible  to  an  Israelite, 
and  created  a  nation  bent  above  all  else  on  showing  honor 
to  God  and  on  preserving  his  name  inviolate.  But  it 
secured  this  at  a  heavy  expense,  for  the  observance  of  the 
law  led  not  unnaturally  to  the  substitution  of  hard  and 


4  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE 

cold  formalism  for  the  heart  service  of  the  prophets.  To 
the  Pharisees,  who  after  the  Maccabean  wars  were  the 
strictest  and  most  consistent  representatives  of  the  reli- 
gious spirit  of  the  age,  righteousness  meant  the  complete 
and  minute  performance  of  all  the  duties  prescribed  in  the 
law,  whether  in  the  written  Torah  or  in  the  great  body 
of  traditional  precepts  which  had  grown  up  about  it.  In 
that  law,  as  commonly  conceived,  the  moral  and  ceremo- 
nial elements  stood  on  one  plane.  The  distinction 
between  them  was  lost  sight  of.  The  universal  moral 
law  as  such  did  not  enter  into  consideration.  Its  most 
sacred  obligations  were  binding  only  because  they  consti- 
tuted a  part  of  the  national  code ;  and  that  code  embraced 
a  far  larger  body  of  ritual  than  of  ethical  requirements. 
The  obligation  to  be  helpful,  merciful,  and  charitable 
was,  to  be  sure,  always  recognized,  but  if  the  exercise  of 
charity  and  mercy,  or  the  performance  of  acts  prompted 
by  filial  and  fraternal  devotion,  involved  the  violation  of 
any  of  the  innumerable  prescriptions  touching  Sabbath 
observance,  purification,  fasting,  or  tithing,  it  must  be 
dispensed  with.  The  letter  of  the  law,  even  in  its  small- 
est and  most  trivial  enactments,  must  be  obeyed  at  all 
hazards.  And  this  minute  and  literal  observance  of  the 
entire  law  was  not  left  to  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  alone ; 
it  was  demanded  of  all  the  people,  and  the  demand  was 
very  generally  met.  As  has  been  well  said,  "  All  zeal  for 
education  in  the  family,  the  school,  and  the  synagogue 
aimed  at  making  the  whole  people  a  people  of  the  law. 
The  common  man  was  to  know  what  the  law  commanded, 
and  not  only  to  know,  but  to  do  it.  His  whole  life  was 
to  be  ruled  according  to  the  norm  of  law ;  obedience  thereto 
was  to  become  a  fixed  custom,  and  departure  therefrom  an 
inward  impossibility.  On  the  whole,  this  object  was  to  a 
great  degree  attained.  So  faithfully  did  most  of  the  Jews 
adhere  to  their  law,  that  they  willingly  incurred  even  tort- 
ure and  death  itself  in  consequence."1 

Along  with  this  change  in  the  conception  of  righteous- 
ness went  also  a  change  in  the  idea  of  the  covenant  which 

i  Schiirer,  I.e.  II.  S.  387  (Eng.  Trans.,  Div.  II.  Vol.  II.  p.  90). 


THE  ORIGIN   OF  CHRISTIANITY  5 

God  had  entered  into  with  his  chosen  people.  It  was 
now  more  and  more  widely  conceived  in  a  commercial 
sense,  as  a  mutual  agreement  by  which  both  the  contract- 
ing parties  were  legally  bound:  the  nation  to  observe  the 
law  given  by  God ;  God  to  pay  the  promised  recompense 
in  proportion  to  its  performances. 

But  not  only  had  the  religious  and  ethical  ideals  of  the 
Jews  undergone  a  modification,  the  hopes  which  they  had 
inherited  from  the  days  of  the  prophets,  and  which  consti- 
tuted an  ever  more  prominent  element  in  their  thinking, 
likewise  experienced  a  manifold  development.  These 
hopes  found  expression,  from  the  days  of  Antiochus  Epiph- 
anes  on,  in  numerous  apocalyptic  works,  in  which  the 
era  of  future  blessedness  is  pictured  in  all  sorts  of  forms 
and  colors.  The  appearance  of  these  works  is  an  index 
of  the  tendency  of  the  times.  The  thinking  of  the  Jews 
was  centring  more  and  more  in  the  future,  and  was  tak- 
ing on  an  increasingly  eschatological  character.1 

But  of  still  greater  significance  is  the  fact  that  their 
thought  was  concerning  itself  to  a  degree  not  true  before 
with  the  future  of  the  individual  and  with  his  relation 
to  the  Messianic  age.  In  earlier  centuries  the  prophetic 
hope  of  a  better  time  to  come  had  reference  only  to  the 
nation  as  a  whole.  The"  pious  Israelite  looked  to  the 
present  for  his  personal  reward,  finding  it  in  health,  in 
happiness,  and  in  long  life.  In  the  future  he  saw  Israel 
glorious,  but  he  did  not  think  of  himself  as  personally 
participating  in  that  glory.  But  in  the  period  succeed- 
ing the  exile,  under  the  pressure  of  present  misfortune, 
the  desire  arose  of  sharing  in  the  promised  blessings  which 
were  ere  long  to  be  poured  out  upon  God's  people.  The 
result  was  the  development  of  a  belief  in  the  resurrection 
of  pious  Israelites,  in  order  that  they  might  enjoy  the 
felicity  of  the  Messianic  age.  And  with  the  belief  in  a 
resurrection  went  naturally,  hand  in  hand,  the  expecta- 

1  Upon  the  Messianic  ideas  of  the  Jews  in  the  centuries  immediately  pre- 
ceding the  coming  of  Christ  see,  in  addition  to  the  works  already  referred 
to,  Baldensperger :  Das  Selbstbewusstsein  Jesu  im  Liclite  der  messianischen 
Hoffnungen  seiner  Zeit,  Erster  Theil,  Die  messianischen  Hoffnungen  des 
Judenthums ;  and  Briggs :  Messiah  of  the  Gospels,  Chap.  I. 


6  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

tion  of  a  judgment,  by  which  should  be  determined  the 
future  of  each  individual;  by  which  it  should  be  deter- 
mined whether  he  was  to  have  a  part  in  the  coming  pros- 
perity. For  wicked  Israelites  there  was  no  hope.  The 
people  at  large  had  become  so  impressed  with  the  impor- 
tance of  righteousness,  that  the  unrighteous  Jew  was 
generally  regarded  as  no  better  than  a  Gentile,  and  as 
without  hope  for  the  future.  The  thought  of  some  did 
not  go  beyond  this.  It  was  enough  that  the  unworthy 
should  be  excluded  from  the  felicity  of  the  faithful.  But 
the  belief  became  increasingly  common  that  there  would 
be  a  resurrection  of  the  wicked  as  well  as  of  the  good,  and 
that  the  former  would  suffer  the  penalty  for  their  sins  in 
the  fires  of  Gehenna. 

But  this  growing  emphasis  upon  the  individual's  rela- 
tion to  the  future  meant,  of  course,  a  growing  emphasis 
upon  the  connection  between  reward  and  performance. 
If  his  participation  in  the  coming  blessings  depended  upon 
his  own  conduct,  then  there  was  additional  reason  for 
keeping  the  law  in  all  its  strictness ;  not  in  order  to  show 
'his  gratitude  and  devotion  to  God;  not  because  he  hun- 
gered and  thirsted  after  righteousness;  not  even,  as  in 
earlier  days,  with  the  patriotic  and,  in  part  at  least,  un- 
selfish desire  to  promote  the  welfare  of  the  nation  as  a 
whole  and  to  hasten  the  consummation  of  its  hopes,  — 
but  in  order  to  win  for  himself  the  promised  reward. 
Righteousness  in  order  to  future  happiness  now  became 
more  and  more  generally  the  watchword  of  believing 
Israelites,  and  the  commercial  idea  of  the  covenant 
between  God  and  his  people  had  full  scope  to  work  out 
to  the  uttermost  its  baleful  effects.  It  is  clear  that  the 
observance  of  the  law  must  become  increasingly  a  matter 
of  pure  calculation ;  not  how  much  can  I  do  for  the  God 
that  loves  me  and  has  so  signally  blessed  me,  but  how 
little  may  I  do  and  yet  secure  the  reward  I  seek.  The 
controlling  conception  is  that  of  creditor  and  debtor,  and 
the  inevitable  tendency  is  for  the  debtor  to  regard  his 
creditor  not  with  love  and  devotion,  but  with  fear,  and 
almost  repulsion;  to  push  him  as  far  away  as  possible, 


THE  ORIGIN   OF   CHRISTIANITY  7 

and  to  pay  him  only  so  much  as  may  be  exacted.1  This 
spirit  was  of  course  not  absolutely  universal  in  the  Juda- 
ism of  the  period  with  which  we  are  dealing.  There 
were  undoubtedly  many  who  were  thoroughly  in  earnest 
in  their  effort  to  serve  God,  not  merely  for  the  sake  of 
reward,  but  because  of  their  love  for  him  and  their  innate 
desire  to  do  his  will.  But  they  were  certainly  the  excep- 
tion, not  the  rule;  and  even  such  faithful  souls  found 
commonly  in  the  observance  of  the  law  the  only  expres- 
sion for  their  devotion.2 

Concerning  the  nature  of  the  future  happiness  and  bless- 
edness for  which  all  pious  Israelites  were  looking,  opinions 
differed  more  or  less  widely;  but  all  agreed  that  the  bless- 
ings were  to  be  national  blessings,  that  God  was  to  estab- 
lish his  kingdom,  and  that  in  that  kingdom,  and  in  it 
alone,  the  promised  felicity  was  to  be  realized.3  That 
felicity  was  pictured  in  the  most  glowing  colors  by  the 
apocalyptic  writers  of  the  period  with  which  we  are  deal- 
ing. Not  only  were  the  Jews  to  be  freed  from  all  foreign 
domination  arid  to  be  raised  to  a  position  of  supremacy 
over  all  the  earth,  the  Messianic  age,  the  age  of  the  king- 
dom, was  to  be  a  period  of  unexampled  fruitfulness,  of 
unmeasured  health  and  prosperity,  of  unbroken  peace  and 
joy.  But  more  than  that,  it  was  to  be  a  time  of  perfect 
holiness  and  righteousness,  when  law  and  temple  service 
should  be  observed  with  scrupulous  and  unvarying  exact- 
ness, and  all  should  be  pure  and  upright  in  God's  sight. 
Upon  this  feature  of  the  coming  kingdom  the  greatest 
stress  was  naturally  laid,  and  it  was  widely  believed  that 

1  This  tendency  is  clearly  revealed  in  the  efforts  of  the  scribes  to  make  the 
observance  of  the  law  easier,  without  neglecting  or  violating  its  letter. 

2  Not  a  few  passages  in  Jewish  literature  show  that  it  was  possible  for  the 
law,  in  spite  of  the  formalism  to  which  its  observance  led  on  the  part  of  the 
people  in  general,  to  meet  and  satisfy  the  religious  needs  of  many  devout  souls 
and  to  nourish  a  profound  type  of  piety.    Compare,  e.g.,  Psa.  i.,  xix.,  cxix. 
For  an  admirable  though  somewhat  one-sided  presentation  of  the  religious 
value  of  the  law,  see  Montefiore's  Hibbert  Lectures  (1892)  on  The  Origin  and 
Growth  of  Religions,  as  illustrated  by  the  Religion  of  the  Ancient  Hebrews, 
especially  Lect.  IX. 

3  Other  peoples  might  sometimes  be  thought  of  as  sharing  in  the  national 
felicity,  but  only  as  they  recognized  the  God  of  Israel  and  observed  his  law  and 
became  incorporated  into  the  elect  race. 


8  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

such  pt..fect  and  permanent  holiness  would  be  secured 
through  the  influence  of  the  divine  Spirit,  who  would  then 
be  poured  out  upon  the  faithful  and  would  guide  and  con- 
trol all  their  activities.  The  presence  of  the  Spirit  is 
represented  in  many  Jewish  writings  as  a  characteristic 
mark  of  the  Messianic  age,  which  was  thus  to  be  distin- 
guished from  the  present  aeon  with  its  merely  human 
powers  and  energies. 

The  anticipation  of  the  coming  era  of  blessedness  fre- 
quently included  the  expectation  of  a  Messiah,  who  should 
lead  God's  chosen  people  to  victory  and  bear  rule  in  the 
consummated  kingdom.  At  the  same  time,  that  expecta- 
tion was  not  universal  and  did  not  constitute  a  part  of  the 
original  Messianic  hope.  Some  of  those  that  dwell  most 
upon  the  approaching  period  of  felicity  are  entirely  silent 
respecting  a  Messiah.  All  agreed  that  the  kingdom  was 
to  be  God's  kingdom,  and  that  his  authority  would  be 
supreme ;  and  consequently  it  was  possible  to  think  of  it 
without  any  other  head  than  Jehovah  himself,  and  of  its 
establishment  by  his  own  hand  without  the  agency  of 
another.  And  yet  during  the  century,  or  century  and  a 
half,  preceding  the  birth  of  Christ,  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  conception  of  a  Messiah,  and  the  anticipation  of 
his  coming,  were  growing  more  and  more  common.  The 
earlier  Sibylline  Oracles,  the  Psalter  of  Solomon,  the 
Book  of  Enoch,  all  refer  to  the  advent  of  a  Messianic 
king,  and  many  passages  in  the  Gospels  and  in  Josephus 
indicate  the  general  prevalence  of  the  idea.1 

1  By  those  who  thus  looked  for  the  coming  of  a  personal  Messiah,  it  was 
commonly  supposed  that  he  would  be,  not  a  divine,  but  a  human  being ;  in 
constitution  a  man,  but  a  man  endowed  by  God  (or  by  the  Holy  Ghost  accord- 
ing to  the  Psalter  of  Solomon)  with  extraordinary  gifts  and  powers  which 
should  fit  him  to  lead  God's  chosen  people  to  victory,  and  to  rule  his  kingdom 
in  wisdom,  holiness,  and  righteousness. 

The  idea  of  the  Messiah's  pre-existence  was  not  wholly  unknown ;  and 
though  by  most  he  was  regarded  as  a  mere  man,  born  like  other  men,  and 
passing  through  the  same  stages  of  development  with  them,  he  was  by  some 
invested  with  supernatural  features  which  raised  him  above  the  level  of  ordi- 
nary humanity.  Still  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  there  was  a  tendency  amonir  Hie 
Jews  to  attribute  pre-existence  to  all  things  that  had  religious  worth,  as  for 
instance  to  the  Torah,  to  the  temple,  and  to  Jerusalem,  and,  therefore,  the 
ascription  of  pre-existence  to  the  Messiah  does  not  necessarily  involve  the 
ascription  to  him  of  divinity  in  any  sense.  The  basis  of  the  idea  of  the  Mes- 


THE   ORIGIN   OF   CHRISTIAN ITY  9 

At  the  opening  of  the  Christian  era  the  belief  was  wide- 
spread that  the  time  was  ripe  for  the  establishment  of  the 
Messianic  kingdom,  and  that  the  long-expected  consum- 
mation was  near  at  hand.  The  troublous  times  in  which 
the  Jews  had  been  living  since  the  beginning  of  the  second 
century  before  Christ  seemed  to  indicate  the  approach  of 
the  great  crisis  when  judgment  should  be  passed  upon  all 
the  enemies  of  Israel,  and  the  oppressed  children  of  God 
be  released  from  their  long  bondage.  Though  there  were 
still  some  unrighteous  Jews  that  did  not  fear  God  and 
obey  his  commands,  yet  on  the  whole  his  law  was.  observed 
with  remarkable  punctiliousness  by  the  great  body  of  the 
people,  and  it  was  felt  that  God  could  not  long  leave  the 
national  virtue  unrewarded,  could  not  long  withhold 
the  promised  peace  and  blessedness.  The  Assumption 
of  Moses,  a  work  written  about  this  time,  represents  the 
kingdom  as  just  on  the  eve  of  establishment,  and  calls 
attention  to  the  numerous  signs  which  were  heralding 
its  coming.  We  learn  also  from  Josephus,  that  many 
pretended  Messiahs  appeared  during  this  period,  and 
succeeded  in  leading  multitudes  away  after  them.  Evi- 
dently the  hope  of  the  speedy  establishment  of  the 
kingdom  was  very  widespread,  and  the  people  at  large 
were  all  expectancy. 

2.  JOHN  THE  BAPTIST 

Just  at  this  juncture,  John  the  Baptist  began  his  preach- 
ing. Of  the  early  life  of  John  we  know  practically  noth- 
ing.1 He  appeared  suddenly  from  the  wilderness,  in  the 
garb  of  an  ascetic,  announcing  the  immediate  coming  of 
the  kingdom  of  God,  and  summoning  his  countrymen  to 

siah's  pre-existence  may  be  found  in  Micah  v.  2,  which  can  easily  bear  that 
interpretation,  and  in  Daniel  vii.  13-14,  where  it  is  necessary  only  to  inter- 
pret "  Son  of  Man  "  as  referring  to  the  Messiah,  in  order  to  get  his  pre- 
existence,  and  thus  the  Book  of  Enoch  actually  does  interpret  the  phrase. 
On  the  idea  of  pre-existence ,  see  especially  Haruack,  Dogmengeschichte,  3te 
Auflage,  I.  S.  755  sq. 

1  Luke,  after  speaking  of  John's  birth,  says  only  that  "  the  child  grew  and 
waxed  strong  in  spirit,  and  was  in  the  deserts  till  the  day  of  his  shewing  unto 
Israel"  (Luke  i.  80). 


10  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

repentance.  The  burden  of  his  preaching  was  judgment. 
If  the  kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand,  the  expected  judgment 
must  be  impending,  and  hence  the  necessity  of  repentance 
unto  the  remission  of  sins.  It  is  fully  in  accord  with  his 
character,  as  revealed  in  his  ascetic  mode  of  life,  that  his 
thought  dwells  rather  upon  the  obligation  entailed  by  the 
approach  of  the  kingdom  than  upon  the  blessings  involved 
in  it,  that  he  feels  himself  called  to  warn  rather  than  to 
cheer  and  comfort. 

But  John  did  not  content  himself  with  the  announce- 
ment of  the  coming  of  the  kingdom  and  with  the  preach- 
ing of  repentance.  According  to  the  testimony  of  all  our 
Gospels,  he  also  foretold  the  advent  of  the  Messiah;  for 
none  other  than  the  Messiah  can  be  referred  to  in  the 
words:  "There  cometh  one  that  is  mightier  than  I,  the 
latchet  of  whose  shoes  I  am  not  worthy  to  unloose.  He 
shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire; 
whose  fan  is  in  his  hand,  thoroughly  to  cleanse  his  thresh- 
ing-floor, and  to  gather  the  wheat  into  his  garner ;  but  the 
chaff  he  will  burn  up  with  unquenchable  fire."1  The 
imagery  is  suggested  by  Isaiah  and  Malachi,  the  only 
advance  upon  them  lying  in  the  fact  that  John  represents 
the  judgment  as  conducted  by  the  Messiah  instead  of  by 
God  himself;  but  in  this  he  only  reproduced  an  opinion 
that  was  doubtless  common  in  his  day.2  In  fact,  his 
thought  respecting  the  Messiah  and  his  work  moved 
wholly  along  traditional  lines.  His  conceptions  were 
based  apparently  not  upon  a  special  revelation  of  his 
own,  received  directly  from  God,  nor  upon  any  personal 
knowledge  that  he  had  of  Jesus.  How  different  indeed 
his  idea  of  the  Messiah's  work  was  from  Christ's  idea, 
is  shown  by  the  message  that  Jesus  sent  him  in  reply  to 
his  question  whether  Jesus  was  the  Messiah :  "  Go  your 
way  and  tell  John  what  things  ye  have  seen  and  heard; 
the  blind  receive  their  sight,  the  lame  walk,  the  lepers 
are  cleansed  and  the  deaf  hear,  the  dead  are  raised  up, 
the  poor  have  good  tidings  preached  to  them.  And  blessed 

i  Luke  iii.  16, 17 ;  cf .  Mark  i.  7,  8 ;  Matt.  iii.  11, 12 ;  John  i.  26,  27. 
i  Cf.  The  Book  of  Enoch,  45,  55,  61,  69. 


THE  ORIGIN   OF   CHRISTIANITY  11 

is  he  whosoever  shall  find  none  occasion  of  stumbling  in 
me."1 

It  is  a  significant  fact  that  John  represented  himself 
neither  as  the  Messiah  nor  as  his  expected  forerunner. 
When  the  rulers  of  the  Jews  sent  a  delegation  to  inquire 
about  his  person  and  his  purposes,  he  distinctly  denied 
not  only  that  he  was  the  Christ,  but  also  that  he  was 
either  Elijah  or  "  The  Prophet. "  2  Evidently  he  conceived 
his  connection  with  the  coming  kingdom  not  in  any  sense 
as  official  or  peculiar,  and  his  work  as  a  work  belonging 
to  himself  alone.  He  was  convinced  of  the  nearness  of 
the  great  crisis,  and  he  simply  felt  himself  called  to 
summon  the  people  to  prepare  for  it.  He  was  in  his  own 
esteem  a  preacher  merely,  not  a  prophet,  and  he  did  not 
claim,  as  did  the  Old  Testament  prophets,  to  be  giving 
utterance  to  a  divine  revelation.  He  was  doing  what  any 
one  else  might  have  done;  he  was,  in  fact,  doing  what, 
for  aught  he  knew,  many  more  might  do,  and  do  as  well, 
or  even  better,  than  himself.3 


1  Luke  vii.  22,  23 ;  Matt.  xi.  5,  6.    This  inquiry  addressed  to  Jesus  by  John, 
according  to  Matthew,  after  John  had  been  cast  into  prison,  seems  to  show 
that  up  to  this  time  Jesus  was  not  known  by  John  to  be  the  Messiah ;  and 
that  even  now  when  the  fame  of  his  teaching  had  reached  him  he  was  in 
doubt  whether  Jesus  was  really  the  expected  one  or  only  a  preacher  of  right- 
eousness like  himself.     This  episode  makes  it  difficult  to  regard  John's 
earlier  recognition  of  Jesus'  Messiahship,  to  which  reference  is  made  in  the 
first  chapter  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  and  perhaps  in  Matt.  iii.  14-15,  as  histori- 
cal.   There  is  no  hint  in  our  original  sources  that  John  knew,  while  he  was 
still  preaching,  that  the  Messiah  was  already  come,  or  that  he  had  any  idea 
where  and  when  he  would  appear.    It  is  very  significant  that  though,  perhaps, 
some  of  John's  disciples  later  became  followers  of  Jesus  (cf.  John  i.  37),  not 
all  of  them  did.    Indeed,  they  continued  to  maintain  their  separate  and  inde- 
pendent existence  as  a  sort  of  Johannine  sect,  for  many  years  (Matt.  ix.  14 ; 
Acts  xviii.  25  and  xix.  1  sq.)  ;   and  almost  a  generation  after  their  leader's 
death,  some  of  them  at  least  were  still  expecting  the  Messiah  of  whom  he  had 
spoken.     It  can  hardly  be  supposed  in  the  face  of  these  facts,  that  John  had 
told  them  that  Jesus  was  the  one  to  whose  coming  both  he  and  they  had  been 
looking  forward. 

2  John  i.  21.    The  words  must  be  authentic,  for  no  Christian  would  have 
thought  of  inventing  them  and  putting  them  into  John's  mouth  when  Christ  had 
so  distinctly  declared  John  to  be  the  expected  Elijah  (Matt.  xi.  14,  xvii.  12 ; 
Mark  ix.  13) . 

3  The  rite  of  baptism  which  John  performed  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  an 
official  thing.    He  apparently  employed  it  quite  informally  and  simply  as  a 
symbol,  with  the  purpose  of  impressing  vividly  upon  his  hearers  the  need  of 
that  purification  of  life  which  he  was  preaching. 


12  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

In  his  belief  that  the  kingdom  of  God  was  at  hand,  John 
was  not  alone,  as  we  have  seen.  He  only  voiced  what 
was  at  the  time  a  widespread  conviction,  and  for  that  very 
reason  his  announcement  found  ready  credence.  And  yet 
his  influence  seems  to  have  been  confined  largely  to  the 
common  people.  They  flocked  to  him  in  great  numbers, 
but  the  leaders  of  the  nation,  the  "  chief  priests  and  the 
scribes  and  the  elders,"  appear  to  have  held  aloof.  There 
is  nothing  surprising  in  this.  If  the  kingdom  was  ap- 
proaching, it  was  well  enough  for  the  publicans  and 
sinners  to  repent  of  their  sins  and  endeavor  to  prepare 
themselves  for  it,  but  no  duty  of  the  kind  devolved  upon 
the  religious  aristocracy  among  the  chosen  people.  Hav- 
ing satisfied  themselves  that  John  was  not  the  Messiah, 
and  that  he  had  no  definite  information  to  impart  respect- 
ing him,  there  was  no  reason  why  they  should  concern 
themselves  further  with  him,  any  more  than  with  any  one 
else  who  might  declare  the  kingdom  to  be  approaching  and 
emphasize  the  need  of  purity  and  righteousness  on  the 
part  of  the  people  at  large.  And  so  we  are  not  surprised 
to  find  that  our  sources  contain  no  indication  that  they 
ever  took  any  steps  against  him.  They  seem  to  have 
treated  him  in  the  main,  as  was  to  have  been  expected, 
with  utter  indifference.  But  this  goes  to  confirm  the 
impression  made  by  our  sources,  that  John  did  not  con- 
cern himself  with  political  affairs.  There  is  no  trace  of 
a  political  purpose  in  any  of  his  recorded  utterances,  and 
his  advice  to  the  soldiers,  who  asked  him  what  they 
should  do,  apparently  thinking  that  there  might  be  some 
special  work  for  them  to  perform  in  connection  with  the 
approaching  kingdom:  "Do  violence  to  no  man,  neither 
exact  anything  wrongfully,  and  be  content  with  your 
wages,"1  certainly  does  not  indicate  that  he  was  looking 
for  a  political  and  social  revolution;  nor  do  his  words 
addressed  to  the  people  in  general:  "Begin  not  to  say 
within  yourselves,  We  have  Abraham  to  our  father;  for  I 
say  unto  you  that  God  is  able  of  these  stones  to  raise  up 
children  unto  Abraham,"2  sound  as  if  his  mind  were  occu- 

i  Luke  iii.  14.  2  Luke  iii.  8. 


THE  ORIGIN   OF   CHRISTIANITY  13 

pied  with  the  national  aspects  of  the  kingdom  which  he 
preached."  It  is  significant,  in  fact,  that  John  has  nothing 
whatever  to  say  about  the  nature  of  the  future  kingdom, 
that  he  draws  no  pictures  of  it,  and  refers  to  it  only  as  a 
reason  for  his  exhortation  to  repentance.  He  was  con- 
cerned not  with  future  conditions  and  developments,  but 
only  with  present  reformation,  which  he  felt  to  be  the 
immediate  and  pressing  need  of  the  hour  in  view  of  the 
nearness  of  the  judgment. 

That  reformation,  as  John  preached  it,  concerned  not 
mere  external  observance,  but  the  heart  as  well.  It  in- 
volved the  exercise  of  mercy,  justice,  honesty,  fidelity, 
and  humility.1  And  yet  there  is  no  clear  assertion  in  his 
recorded  utterances  of  a  general  religious  and  ethical  ideal 
of  such  a  character  as  to  effect  a  thorough  reconstruction 
of  the  prevailing  notions  of  the  age.  Evidently  he  felt 
very  keenly  the  artificiality  and  externality  of  the  reli- 
gious and  ethical  ideals  of  his  countrymen,  and  yet  he 
seems  not  to  have  been  prepared  to  enunciate  a  clean-cut 
and  thoroughgoing  principle  which  should  effectually 
modify  them.  It  is  also  noticeable,  and  the  fact  may 
throw  light  upon  his  failure  to  enunciate  such  a  principle, 
that  in  his  recorded  utterances  he  never  criticises  nor 
questions  in  any  respect  the  validity  of  the  Jewish  law, 
written  or  unwritten,  nor  is  he  ever  accused  of  doing  so. 
It  would  seem,  indeed,  that  he  resembled  the  Pharisees 
in  his  emphasis  upon  the  strictest  observance  of  that  law, 
if  we  may  judge  from  the  habits  of  his  disciples,  who,  in 
distinction  from  the  disciples  of  Jesus,  fasted  often.2 

The  preaching  of  John  was  not  of  such  a  character  as 
to  leave  any  lasting  impression  upon  the  Jews.  It  was 
neither  far-reaching  enough  nor  sufficiently  radical  to 
effect  a  genuine  and  permanent  reformation.  He  had 
nothing  to  offer  the  people  which  could  arouse  their 
enthusiasm  and  enlist  their  devotion.  His  announce- 
ment of  the  coming  of  the  kingdom  attracted  their  atten- 
tion, and  they  went  out  to  him,  hoping  doubtless  that 
they  might  actually  witness  its  establishment,  or  at  least 

1  Cf.  Luke  iii.  10-14.  2  Mark  ii.  18;  Matt.  ix.  14;  Luke  v.  33. 


14  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE 

learn  all  about  it.  But  John  could  not  show  them  the 
kingdom,  nor  could  he  give  them  any  very  explicit  infor- 
mation respecting  it ;  and  time  passed,  and  still  the  king- 
dom whose  approach  he  had  proclaimed,  and  in  which  the 
interest  of  his  hearers  chiefly  centred,  did  not  reveal 
itself,  and  all  remained  as  it  had  been.  Save  for  a  quick- 
ened sense  of  moral  responsibility,  and  possibly  a  height- 
ened conception  of  ethical  values,  which  he  can  hardly 
have  failed  to  impart  to  some  at  least  of  those  to  whom  he 
spoke,  the  condition  of  the  people  at  large,  their  life,  their 
hopes,  their  ideas  and  ideals,  were  apparently  about  the 
same  after  he  had  passed  off  the  scene  as  before  he  began 
his  work.  That  some  were  prepared  by  his  preaching  for 
the  preaching  of  Jesus,  there  can  be  no  doubt.  Though 
his  work  was  not  of  a  character  to  abide,  some  must  have 
found  it  easier  to  understand  Jesus  because  of  the  moral 
sentiments  that  John  had  succeeded  in  arousing.  And 
this  Jesus  recognized,  and  because  of  it  he  was  led  to  pay 
John  the  tribute  and  to  show  him  the  honor  which  alone 
have  made  him  immortal. 

But  one  thing  the  experience  of  John  abundantly  proves, 
if  in  the  presence  of  the  numerous  apocalyptic  writings  of 
the  age  any  proof  be  needed,  and  light  is  thrown  by  it 
upon  the  career  of  Jesus.  No  religious  teacher  could 
hope  to  attract  the  attention  and  to  hold  the  interest  of  the 
Jewish  people  in  general  at  the  time  of  which  we  are 
speaking,  unless  his  teaching  related  itself  to  the  expected 
kingdom  of  God;  unless  he  had  something  of  importance 
to  communicate  respecting  it,  or  something  of  importance 
to  do  in  connection  with  its  establishment.  No  religious 
reformation  could  have  any  hope  of  success,  except  as  it 
rooted  itself  in  the  people's  thought  and  hope  of  that 
kingdom.  It  was  as  a  preacher  of  the  kingdom  that  John 
first  attracted  notice,  and  it  was  as  a  preacher  of  the  king- 
dom that  Jesus  first  riveted  attention  upon  himself. 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  CHRISTIANITY  15 


3.  JESUS  l 

The  Gospel  of  Mark  opens  its  account  of  Jesus'  minis- 
try with  the  words :  "  Now  after  that  John  was  delivered 
up,  Jesus  came  into  Galilee,  preaching  the  gospel  of  God, 
and  saying,  The  time  is  fulfilled,  and  the  kingdom  of  God 
is  at  hand:  repent  ye  and  believe  in  the  gospel."2  It 
was  thus  as  a  preacher  of  the  kingdom  that  Jesus  began 
his  public  career;  and  it  is  only  as  we  recognize  this  fact 
that  we  can  understand  him  at  all.  But  in  order  to  realize 
what  it  meant  to  him  to  be  a  preacher  of  the  kingdom,  we 
must  go  back  a  little.  Our  knowledge  of  Jesus'  early 
life  and  training  is  very  meagre.  It  is  not  altogether 
without  significance  that  his  youth  was  passed  in  Galilee, 
where  the  influence  of  the  scribes  and  doctors  of  the  law 
was  less  controlling  than  in  Jerusalem,  and  where,  though 
the  law  itself  and  the  traditions  of  the  elders  were  observed 
on  the  whole  with  reasonable  punctiliousness,  such  observ- 
ance did  not  to  the  same  extent  as  in  Judea  dominate  the 
thought  and  life  of  the  people.  Galilee  was  regarded  by 
the  doctors  of  Jerusalem  as  much  less  genuinely  and  thor- 
oughly Jewish  than  the  southern  portion  of  the  Holy 
Land,  and  it  received  from  them  the  contemptuous  appel- 
lation of  the  "Court  of  the  Gentiles."  It  was  looked 
upon,  moreover,  as  inferior  to  Judea  not  simply  in  reli- 
gious devotion,  but  also  in  general  culture.  The  schools 
were  fewer  arid  poorer,  and  rabbinic  learning  much  rarer, 
than  in  the  south.  Educated  in  Galilee,  therefore,  it  was 
hardly  to  be  expected  that  Jesus  would  feel  the  influence 

1  See  in  addition  to  the  Lives  of  Christ  and  the  general  works  on  New 
Testament  theology,  Wendt :  Lehre  Jesu  (Eng.  Trans,  of  Vol  II.  in  two  vol- 
umes, The  Teaching  of  Jesus) ;  Baldensperger :  Das  Selbstbewusstsein  Jesu 
im  Lichte  der  Messianischen  Hoffnungen  seiner  Zeit,  Zweiter  Theil,  Das 
Selbstbewusstsein  Jesu ;  Toy :  Judaism  and  Christianity  ;  Cone :  The  Gospel 
and  its  Earliest  Interpretations;  Briggs :  The  Messiah  of  the  Gospels ;  and  the 
numerous  works  on  the  kingdom  of  God  which  have  appeared  in  recent 
years,  among  them,  Bruce:  The  Kingdom  of  God;  Schmoller:  Die  Lehre 
vom  Reiche  Gottes  in  den  Schriften  des  Neuen  Testaments ;  Issel :  Die  Lehre 
vom  Reiche  Gottes  im  Neuen  Testament;  J.  Weiss:  Die  Predigt  Jesu  vom 
Reiche  Gottes;  Schnedermann :  Jesu  Verkundigung  und  Lehre  vom  Reiche 
Gottes. 

*  Mark  i.  14,  15. 


16  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

of  rabbinic  methods  and  of  the  traditions  of  the  schools  to 
the  same  extent  that  he  must  have  done  had  he  lived  in 
Jerusalem.  There  is  no  trace  of  anything  of  the  kind  in 
his  recorded  utterances,  and  he  was  never  accused,  so  far 
as  we  can  learn,  of  being  a  renegade  scribe  or  Pharisee. 

An  interesting  and  very  instructive  incident  of  his  boy- 
hood has  been  preserved,  which  throws  welcome  light 
upon  his  religious  development,  and  does  much  to  explain 
his  subsequent  career.  The  incident  is  recorded  in  Luke 
ii.  44  sq.  From  that  passage  we  learn  that  already,  at  the 
age  of  twelve  years,  Jesus  had  the  conviction  that  God  was 
his  father,  and  that  that  conviction  controlled  him  to  such 
an  extent  that  it  seemed  quite  natural  and  right  to  him, 
upon  the  occasion  in  question,  to  allow  what  he  regarded 
as  his  filial  duty  to  his  divine  father  to  take  precedence  of 
his  ordinary  duty  to  his  human  parents.  How  and  when 
this  epoch-making  conviction  came  to  him,  it  would  be 
idle  to  conjecture.  Under  the  influence  of  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures,  with  which  he  was  very  familiar,  he  might 
have  been  led  to  conceive  of  God  as  the  father  of  the 
Jewish  nation,  for  that  idea  finds  at  least  occasional  ex- 
pression in  those  writings  which  he  most  loved  to  quote; 
but  the  far  more  remarkable  fact  that  God's  fatherhood 
was  interpreted  by  him  as  of  individual  and  not  simply 
national  significance,  that  it  meant  to  him  not  merely 
Israel's  divine  sonship,  but  his  own,  can  find  its  ultimate 
explanation  only  in  his  own  unique  religious  personality. 

But  in  whatever  way  and  at  whatever  time  Jesus  gained 
the  consciousness  of  his  divine  sonship,  once  gained,  it 
must  have  dominated  his  thought  and  life,  and  he  must 
have  found  in  it  more  and  more  life's  chief  blessedness. 
And  as  he  grew  older,  and  learned  more  of  the  religious 
condition  of  his  people,  as  he  saw  how  small  a  place  the 
idea  of  God's  fatherhood  occupied  in  contemporary  thought, 
and  to  what  superficiality,  selfishness,  formality,  and  hy- 
pocrisy the  lack  of  it  had  led,  he  must  have  felt  increas- 
ingly the  importance  of  it,  and  his  countrymen's  supreme 
need  of  its  uplifting  and  ennobling  power. 

At  the  same  time  that  he  was  finding  unfailing  joy  in 


THE   ORIGIN   OF   CHRISTIANITY  17 

his  sense  of  God's  fatherly  love  and  favor,  his  study  of 
the  Old  Testament  and  the  surroundings  in  which  he 
lived  must  have  conspired  to  fill  his  mind  with  the  thought 
of  the  better  and  brighter  future  in  store  for  God's  chosen 
people.  He  could  hardly  help  sharing  in  the  Messianic 
hopes  that  were  cherished  by  all  about  him.  Those  hopes 
were  most  vivid  not  among  the  scribes  and  doctors  of  the 
law,  but  among  the  more  devout  and  humble  of  the  common 
people,  who  found  their  religious  nourishment  chiefly  in 
the  prophets  and  in  the  numerous  apocalyptic  writings  of 
the  age.  There  can  be  little  doubt,  then,  that  Jesus,  like 
so  many  of  his  compatriots,  including  John  himself,  was 
looking  for  the  speedy  establishment  of  the  Messianic 
kingdom;  and  John's  proclamation  of  that  kingdom  must 
have  found  quick  response  in  his  heart.  The  profound 
impression  which  the  great  preacher  made  upon  him  is 
shown  in  his  own  utterances  concerning  him  at  a  later 
time,  and  the  emphasis  which  John  laid  upon  the  neces- 
sity of  repentance  and  righteousness  as  the  true  prepara- 
tion for  the  approaching  crisis,  could  not  fail  to  meet  with 
his  hearty  approval.  That  he  should  enroll  himself  among 
John's  disciples,  and  receive  baptism  at  his  hands,  was 
the  most  natural  thing  in  the  world.  The  act  was  simply 
an  expression  of  his  own  expectation  of  the  speedy  com- 
ing of  the  kingdom  to  which  John  was  giving  such  vigor- 
ous utterance,  and  of  his  own  preparedness  therefor. 

It  was  in  connection  with  his  baptism  that  Jesus  seems 
to  have  received  for  the  first  time  the  revelation  of  his  own 
Messiahship,  of  his  own  intimate  and  peculiar  relation  to 
the  kingdom  for  whose  coming  he  was  looking.  The 
words  that  he  is  reported  to  have  heard  spoken  from  heaven 
on  that  occasion:  "Thou  art  my  beloved  son,  in  thee  I  am 
well  pleased,"1  imply  nothing  less  than  his  conviction 
of  his  Messiahship,  for  they  combine  two  familiar  pro- 
phetic utterances,  which  were  at  that  time  commonly 
regarded  as  referring  to  the  Messiah ; 2  and  that  he  had  not 
previously  reached  that  conviction  is  rendered  probable 

i  Mark  i.  11 ;  Luke  iii.  22;  cf .  Matt.  iii.  17. 
2Psa.  ii.  7;  Isa.  xlii.  1. 


18  THE   APOSTOLIC    AGE 

by  the  fact  that  the  temptation  immediately  followed.1 
That  experience  can  be  understood  only  in  its  relation  to 
Jesus'  Messianic  consciousness;  and  if  that  consciousness 
had  come  to  him  at  an  earlier  time,  the  remarkable  scene 
described  in  such  poetic  form  by  Matthew  and  Luke  must 
have  taken  place  then.  What  that  temptation  meant,  if 
it  was,  as  it  must  have  been,  a  real  temptation,  we  can 
hardly  doubt.  Our  knowledge  of  Jesus'  character  forbids 
the  supposition  that  he  was  tempted  to  use  his  Messianic 
calling  and  power  for  merely  selfish  purposes.  And  yet 
through  the  whole  scene  runs  the  conflict  of  a  lower  ideal 
with  a  higher,  the  conflict  apparently  of  the  common 
Messianic  ideal  of  his  countrymen,  who  were  looking  for 
the  bestowal  upon  Israel  of  earthly  plenty,  earthly  glory, 
earthly  power,  with  the  higher  ideal  of  man's  supreme 
blessedness  which  his  own  religious  experience  had  given 
him.  That  Jesus  had  shared  the  common  Messianic  ideals 
of  his  people,  the  temptation  itself  seems  to  show,  though 
we  cannot  believe  that  he  had  seen  in  improved  earthly 
conditions  the  only,  or  even  the  chief,  blessing  of  the  com- 
ing kingdom.  But  the  Messianic  call  brought  him  face 
to  face  with  the  question,  not  whether  earthly  prosperity 
and  a  life  of  conscious  divine  sonship  are  theoretically 
compatible,  but  whether  he  could,  consistently  with  his 
own  character  and  experience,  devote  himself  to  the  fulfil- 
ment of  the  common  earthly  hopes  of  his  countrymen; 
whether  he  could  be  true  to  himself  and  yet  be  the  kind 
of  Messiah  they  expected.  When  he  had  reached  the 
conviction  that  he  could  not  be,  that  there  was  nothing  in 
him  to  respond  to  their  demands,  that  loyalty  to  God, 
whose  fatherhood  had  been  so  clearly  revealed  to  him 
through  the  experience  of  years,  forbade  the  use  of  his 
powers  for  any  but  a  single  end,  and  that  the  very  high- 
est, there  may  perhaps  have  pressed  upon  him  the  tempta- 
tion to  doubt  the  reality  of  his  Messianic  call.  Of  such  a 
temptation,  most  natural  under  the  circumstances,  the 
repeated  taunt  of  the  Devil,  "If  thou  be  the  Son  of  God," 

1  On  the  baptism  and  temptation  of  Jesus,  see  especially  Wendt,  I.e.,  II.  S. 
'  65,  sq.  (Eng.  Trans.,  Vol.  I.,  p.  96,  sq.). 


THE   ORIGIN   OF   CHRISTIANITY  19 

seems  to  contain  at  least  a  suggestion.  But  Jesus  pre- 
vailed over  the  tempter,  and  his  victory  meant  the  assured 
and  permanent  conviction  not  only  of  his  own  Messiah- 
ship,  but  also  of  his  call  to  be  not  an  earthly  prince  and 
conqueror,  but  the  revealer  to  all  his  brethren  of  the 
fatherhood  of  God;  the  mediator  to  them  of  the  blessed- 
ness of  divine  sonship  which  he  had  himself  for  so  long 
enjoyed,  and  which  he  knew  to  be  man's  highest  posses- 
sion. But,  of  course,  in  this  conviction  was  involved  a 
changed  conception  of  the  nature  of  the  expected  Mes- 
sianic kingdom.  If  Jesus,  being. the  Messiah,  was  called 
not  to  secure  for  Israel  earthly  plenty  and  earthly  power, 
but  to  be  the  medium  for  the  impartation  of  purely  spirit- 
ual gifts,  the  Messianic  kingdom  was  to  be  a  kingdom 
marked  by  the  possession  of  spiritual  blessings,  and  in  it 
were  to  be  fully  realized  God's  fatherhood  and  man's 
divine  sonship.  It  is  such  a  kingdom  that  Jesus  pro- 
claimed, according  to  all  our  sources ;  and  it  must  have 
been  such  a  kingdom  that  he  had  in  mind  at  the  very 
beginning,  when  "after  John  was  delivered  up,  he  came 
into  Galilee,  preaching  the  gospel  of  God,  and  saying  the 
kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand."1 

But  we  must  not  suppose  that  in  preaching  thus  Jesus 
was  proclaiming  any  other  than  the  promised  Messianic 
kingdom  to  which  the  Jews  had  so  long  been  looking  for- 
ward. Our  sources  make  it  very  clear  that  he  believed 
himself  to  be  not  an  unannounced  and  unheralded  mes- 
senger of  God,  but  the  Messiah  of  the  prophets,  and  the 
kingdom  of  God  which  he  proclaimed,  the  kingdom  fore- 
told by  them.  This  being  the  case,  Jesus  was  not  con- 
cerned, as  he  must  otherwise  have  been,  to  turn  the 
thoughts  of  his  contemporaries  from  the  kingdom  of  their 
hopes  to  another  kingdom,  and  to  deny  the  coming  of  the 
former  in  order  to  clear  the  way  for  the  latter.  He  began 
with  the  announcement  of  the  approach  of  that  for  which 
they  were  all  looking,  and  throughout  his  ministry  it  was 
this  kingdom,  and  none  other,  of  which  he  spoke.  It  is 
very  significant  that  Jesus  nowhere  sets  over  against  the 

i  Mark  i.  14,  15. 


20  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

pictures  of  the  kingdom  drawn  by  the  apocalyptic  writers 
and  current  among  the  people,  a  new  picture,  or  descrip- 
tion, or  definition  of  it.  He  dwells  with  constant  insis- 
tence upon  the  spirit  and  the  life  which  characterize  the 
kingdom,  and  which  must  characterize  all  within  it,  upon 
the  state  of  heart  without  which  a  man  cannot  enter  it; 
but  beyond  that  he  rarely  goes.  And  so  when  we  seek 
to  determine  his  conception  of  it,  we  are  left  to  formulate 
it  for  ourselves  as  best  we  can,  upon  the  basis  chiefly  of 
parables  which  were  employed  by  him  for  another  purpose, 
the  practical  purpose  of  bringing  those  who  heard  him 
into  the  right  attitude  toward  God  their  father.  It  has 
been  supposed  by  many  that  Jesus  adopted  the  phrase 
"kingdom  of  God"  simply  as  a  convenience,  and  that  he 
employed  it  in  his  preaching  only  because  he  could  thus 
best  secure  the  attention  of  his  countrymen  and  convey 
to  them  his  divine  message.  But  the  supposition  is  un- 
warranted. There  can  be  no  doubt  that  he  believed  pro- 
foundly in  the  kingdom,  and  that  his  career  was  moulded 
to  no  small  degree  by  that  belief.  Much  of  his  teaching 
can  be  understood  on  no  other  supposition.  It  was  not 
simply  a  Gospel  that  he  had  to  preach,  it  was  the  Gospel 
of  the  kingdom.  And  so  the  conditions  of  realizing  one's 
divine  sonship  were  conceived  by  him  as  conditions  of 
entering  the  kingdom,  and  the  actual  realization  of  that 
sonship  as  life  within  the  kingdom.  All  the  way  through 
the  thought  of  the  kingdom  dominates. 

But  the  combination  of  the  idea  of  God's  fatherhood, 
the  fruit  of  Jesus'  own  religious  experience,  with  the 
conception  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  which  he  owed  to  his 
Jewish  birth  and  training,  led  him  gradually,  perhaps, 
but  inevitably,  to  regard  that  kingdom  as  a  present  and 
not  simply  a  future  thing.1  If  the  realization  on  man's 

1  See  the  parables  of  the  wheat  and  the  tares,  of  the  leaven  and  of  the 
mustard  seed,  of  the  hid  treasure,  of  the  pearl,  and  of  the  net,  recorded  in 
Matt.  xiii.  Compare  also  Matt.  xi.  11, 12,  xii.  28 ;  Mark  xii.  34  :  and  Luke  xvii. 
20,  21.  It  is  noticeable  that  these  utterances  do  not  belong  to  any  particular 
period  of  Jesus'  life.  So  far  as  we  are  able  to  judge,  he  spoke  thus  at  various 
times,  both  early  and  late.  He  must  have  realized  from  the  beginning  to  the 
end  of  his  ministry  that  the  kingdom  which  he  preached  was  a  present  reality, 
for  conscious  fellowship  with  God  was  already  possible. 


THE   ORIGIN   OF   CHRISTIANITY  21 

part  of  his  filial  relation  to  his  father  God,  with  all  that 
it  implies,  is  the  chief  blessing  of  the  Messianic  kingdom, 
if  it  is  indeed  the  only  blessing  which  the  Messiah  feels 
himself  called  to  mediate,  it  cannot  be  that  the  kingdom 
is  wholly  future  and  will  come  into  existence  only  after 
the  close  of  the  present  seon ;  for  even  here  and  now  its 
supreme  privilege  may  be  realized  by  others,  as  it  has 
been  already  realized  by  the  Messiah  himself.  Thus 
bringing  to  his  brethren  the  Gospel  of  God's  fatherly  love, 
and  awakening  in  their  hearts  an  answering  love  and 
devotion,  Jesus  felt  that  the  kingdom  was  really  come ; 
and  he  saw  in  those  who  accepted  his  message,  and  asso- 
ciated themselves  with  him  as  his  disciples,  not  simply 
heirs  of  a  future  inheritance,  but  citizens  of  a  kingdom 
already  set  up  on  earth.  In  thus  regarding  the  kingdom 
as  a  present  reality,  Jesus  departed  in  a  most  decisive  way 
from  the  conceptions  entertained  by  his  countrymen.  In 
fact,  nowhere  is  the  vital  difference  between  his  view  and 
theirs  revealed  more  clearly  than  here.  Others  might 
regard  righteousness,  and  even  fellowship  with  God,  as 
the  supreme  blessing  of  the  kingdom,  but  no  one  else,  so 
far  as  we  know,  took  the  step  taken  by  Jesus  and  declared 
that  kingdom  already  here. 

But  Jesus  thought  of  the  kingdom  of  God  at  the  same 
time  as  a  future  reality,  existing  in  the  midst  of  a  new 
and  changed  environment,  after  the  end  of  the  present 
world.  This  appears  not  simply  in  the  apocalyptic  dis- 
courses gathered  together  in  the  later  chapters  of  our  Sy- 
noptic Gospels,  but  also  in  various  utterances  belonging 
apparently  to  different  periods  of  his  ministry.  Such,  for 
instance,  are  the  following: 

"  Many  will  say  to  me  in  that  day,  Lord,  Lord,  did  we 
not  prophesy  by  thy  name,  and  by  thy  name  cast  out  devils, 
and  by  thy  name  do  many  mighty  works  ?  And  then  will 
I  profess  unto  them,  I  never  knew  you :  depart  from  me, 
ye  that  work  iniquity."  l  "  And  I  say  unto  you,  that  many 
shall  come  from  the  east  and  the  west,  and  shall  sit  down 
with  Abraham,  and  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  in  the  kingdom  of 

i  Matt.  vii.  21,  22. 


22  THE    APOSTOLIC   AGE 

heaven:  but  the  sons  of  the  kingdom  shall  be  cast  forth 
into  the  outer  darkness:  there  shall  be  the  weeping  and 
gnashing  of  teeth."  1  "  For  whosoever  shall  be  ashamed 
of  me  and  of  my  words,  of  him  shall  the  Son  of  man  be 
ashamed,  when  he  cometh  in  his  own  glory,  and  the  glory 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  holy  angels."  2 

Indeed,  in  the  light  of  such  passages  as  these,  it  is 
clear  that  his  proclamation  of  the  coming  of  the  kingdom, 
with  which  Jesus  began  his  ministry,  had  reference  not 
chiefly  to  the  formation  of  a  company  of  disciples,  by 
which  the  kingdom  was  made  a  present  reality,  but  to 
the  final  consummation,  for  which  it  behooved  every  one 
to  prepare  himself  by  repentance. 

Jesus'  conception  of  the  future  kingdom  was  doubtless 
due  in  part  to  Jewish  influence,  but  in  still  larger  part  to 
his  own  experience.  His  all-controlling  consciousness  of 
the  fatherly  love  of  God,  not  simply  for  Israel  as  a  nation, 
but  for  himself  and  his  brethren  as  individuals,  and  his 
conviction  of  man's  divine  sonship,  must  have  invested 
with  a  new  and  profound  significance  the  common  belief 
in  personal  immortality.  He  must  have  found  the  chief 
value  of  the  future  life  in  the  fact  that  it  was  to  open  to 
the  individual  the  perfect  knowledge  of  his  divine  father's 
will  and  the  privilege  of  intimate  and  unbroken  commu- 
nion with  him.  But  when  at  the  time  of  his  baptism  and 
temptation  Jesus  reached  the  conviction  that  in  the  realiza- 
tion of  man's  divine  sonship  consists  the  essence  of  the 
Messianic  kingdom,  he  must  have  reached  the  farther 
conviction  that  in  the  complete  and  perfect  and  eternal 
realization  of  that  sonship,  which  was  to  be  the  character- 
istic mark  of  the  future  life  with  God,  the  Messianic  king- 
dom would  also  find  its  complete  and  perfect  and  eternal 
realization.  Thus  he  was  led  to  look  forward  to  a  time 
of  consummation,  and  thus  he  was  able  to  do  it  without 
involving  himself  in  the  material  and  sensuous  ideas  of 
his  countrymen.3 

1  Matt.  viii.  11,  12.    Cf.  Luke  xiii.  28,  29. 

2  Luke  ix.  26.    Cf.  Matt.  xvi.  27.    See  also  the  parables  of  the  kingdom 
Avhich  close  with  a  reference  to  the  future. 

3  How  widely  Jesus'  idea  of  the  future  kingdom  differed  from  that  of  most 


THE   ORIGIN   OF  CHRISTIANITY  23 

But  it  is  conceivable  that  Jesus  might  have  looked  for- 
ward to  the  complete  and  perfect  realization  of  the  king- 
dom in  the  future  life  with  God  without  picturing  a  crisis 
separating  the  future  from  the  present,  such  as  was  ex- 
pected by  the  Jews  in  general.  It  is  possible,  indeed, 
that  in  the  earlier  days  of  his  ministry  that  crisis  was  not 
in  his  mind.  But  however  that  may  be,  he  cannot  have 
preached  long  without  discovering  that  there  were  many 
of  his  countrymen  who  would  not  repent  in  response  to 
his  appeals  and  live  the  life  of  God's  sons,  and  who  there- 
fore could  not  share  in  the  eternal  blessedness  of  the  king- 
dom which  he  proclaimed.  When  he  was  convinced  of 
this,  the  necessity  of  a  judgment,  by  which  should  be 
determined  man's  fitness  for  the  Messianic  kingdom,  was 
of  course  apparent.  Jesus  cannot  have  preached  long, 
moreover,  without  realizing  that  the  hostility  of  the 
authorities,  so  early  manifested,  would  result  in  his 
speedy  execution.1  But  when  he  saw  that  he  was  to  die 
before  the  nation  was  won,  and  consequently  before  the 
time  was  ripe  for  the  consummation,  it  was  inevitable, 
unless  he  were  to  give  up  his  belief  in  his  own  Messiah- 
ship,  as  of  course  he  could  not  do,  that  he  should  think  of 
himself  as  coming  again  to  announce  the  consummated 
kingdom  and  to  fulfil  in  preparation  therefor  the  office  of 
Messianic  judge.  The  imagery  of  a  return  upon  the 
clouds  of  heaven  is  taken  from  the  Book  of  Daniel;  but 
though  that  book  may  have  colored  Jesus'  thought  upon 
the  subject,  and  though  his  belief  in  his  own  return  and 
in  his  exercise  of  judgment  may  have  found  confirmation 

of  his  countrymen  appears  in  the  significant  answer  which  he  gave  the  Sad- 
ducees:  "  In  the  resurrection  they  neither  marry  nor  are  given  in  marriage, 
but  are  as  the  angels  in  heaven"  (Matt.  xxii.  30).  In  the  light  of  euch  an 
utterance  as  this,  and  also  of  the  general  tendency  of  Jesus'  teaching,  it  seems 
necessary  to  interpret  the  passages  in  which  eating  and  drinking  in  the  king- 
dom of  the  future  aeon  are  spoken  of  (Luke  xiii.  29,  xxii.  30;  Mark  xiv.  25) 
in  a  figurative  sense.  See  Wendt,  Lehre  Jesu,  II.  S.  169  sq.  (Eng.  Trans.,  I. 
p.  219  sq.). 

1  Whether  Jesus  foresaw  his  execution  from  the  beginning,  or  whether 
the  realization  of  it  grew  upon  him  gradually,  we  cannot  certainly  tell.  See 
on  the  one  side  Haupt,  Die  eschatologischen  Aussagen  Jesu  in  den  synop- 
tischen  Evangelien,  S.  107  sq.,  and  on  the  other  side,  Wendt,  Lehre  Jesu,  II. 
S.  504  (Eng.  Trans.,  II.  p.  218). 


24  THE   APOSTOLIC    AGE 

in  Scripture  and  tradition,1  that  belief  had  its  ultimate 
basis  in  his  own  Messianic  consciousness. 

Jesus  distinctly  disavows,  in  reply  to  his  disciples' 
questions,  a  knowledge  of  the  date  of  his  return,  inform- 
ing them  that  God  alone  is  cognizant  of  it.2  And  yet  he 
apparently  expected  it  to  take  place  at  an  early  day.3 
There  are  some  passages,  indeed,  which,  taken  as  they 
stand,  represent  him  as  prophesying  that  the  consumma- 
tion would  come  even  before  the  death  of  those  to  whom 
he  spoke.4  But  it  is  difficult  from  such  passages  to  deter- 
mine with  assurance  exactly  what  he  thought  and  said ; 
for  the  extended  apocalyptic  discourses,  which  contain 
most  of  his  declarations  upon  the  subject,  are  made  up  of 
numerous  detached  sayings,  very  likely  uttered  on  differ- 
ent occasions  and  referring  perhaps  to  various  events. 
They  are  brought  together  by  the  Evangelists  in  such  a 
way  that  they  seem  to  have  been  spoken  at  one  time,  and 
to  refer  to  the  same  event.  We  cannot  be  certain,  there- 
fore, that  Jesus  declared  that  the  Son  of  Man  would 
return  within  the  lifetime  of  some  of  those  whom  he 
addressed.  But  the  Evangelists,  and  with  them  the  early 
Christians  in  general,  believed  that  he  did ;  and  though 
they  may  have  misunderstood  him,  they  could  hardly 
have  done  so  unless  he  had  given  expression  to  his  expec- 
tation at  least  of  an  early  consummation,  an  expectation 
which  was  entirely  in  line  with  all  we  know  of  his  con- 
ception of  the  kingdom.6 

The  conditions  of  entrance  into  the  kingdom  of  God 

1  The  Messiah  is  represented  as  judge  in  Enoch,  c.  45,  55,  61,  69;  and  John 
the  Baptist  also  thought  of  him  as  such,  so  that  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
the  idea  was  common.    At  the  same  time  the  belief  that  God  was  himself  to 
act  as  judge  was  also  widespread.    Cf.  IV.  Esdras  vi.  1  sq.,  vii.  33;  Enoch  xc. 
20,  and  the  Assumptio  Mosis,  Chap.  X. 

2  Mark  xiii.  32. 

8  It  is  true  that  there  are  some  utterances  which  apparently  imply  the 
lapse  of  a  considerable  interval  before  the  consummation;  as,  for  instance, 
the  parables  concerning  the  growth  of  the  kingdom,  and  especially  Mark  xiii. 
10,  where  it  is  said,  "  the  gospel  must  first  be  preached  unto  all  the  nations." 
But  such  utterances  are  not  absolutely  irreconcilable  with  Jesus'  expectation 
of  a  speedy  return,  and  our  sources  contain  so  many  indications  of  that  expec- 
tation that  it  is  difficult  to  question  it. 

«  Matt.  xvi.  28,  xxiv.  34 ;  Mark  ix.  1.  xiii.  :;<) :  Luke  ix.  27,  xxi.  :<i>. 

6Cf.  also  in  addition  to  the  passages  already  referred  to,  Mark  xiv.  25  j 
Luke  xviii.  8. 


THE  ORIGIN  OF   CHRISTIANITY  25 

were  phrased  by  Christ  in  various  forms,  but  a  careful 
analysis  of  all  his  utterances  upon  the  subject  makes  it 
plain  that  he  regarded  as  the  essential  and  all-embracing 
condition  the  true  spirit  of  sonship  toward  the  father  God. 
The  emphasis  was  always  laid  by  him  upon  the  heart 
rather  than  upon  the  external  act.  The  act  might  be 
proper  and  right  enough,  but  it  had  value  in  his  eyes  only 
as  the  disposition  which  prompted  it  was  what  it  ought  to 
be,  only  as  it  was  the  disposition  of  a  son  of  God.  And 
so  when  he  summoned  men  to  repentance,  as  we  are  told 
that  he  did  at  the  very  beginning  of  his  career,  it  was  not 
primarily  to  a  repentance  for  unrighteous  words  and 
deeds,  but  for  the  lack  at  any  time  and  in  any  degree  of 
the  spirit  and  purpose  of  the  true  son. 

It  is  in  the  light  of  this  fact  that  Jesus'  attitude  toward 
the  Jewish  law  must  be  interpreted.  That  law  was  a 
divine  law  to  him  as  truly  as  to  any  of  his  countrymen, 
and  the  obedience  which  he  insisted  upon  as  an  essential 
part  of  the  conduct  of  a  true  son  of  God  included  its 
observance.  As  he  inculcated  the  most  absolute  and 
thoroughgoing  conformity  to  God's  will,1  so  he  incul- 
cated the  most  absolute  and  thoroughgoing  conformity  to 
the  law,  a  conformity  which  should  far  surpass  that  of 
the  Pharisees.2  The  trouble  with  them  was  that  they 
observed  the  law  not  too  much,  but  too  little.  Their 
boasted  righteousness  was  immeasurably  below  the  stand- 
ard which  he  set.  Not  only  in  their  practices,  but  also  in 
their  precepts,  they  were  far  from  what  they  ought  to  be. 
They  were  hypocrites,  for  they  did  not  practise  what  they 
preached;3  and  they  were  at  the  same  time  blind  leaders 
of  the  blind,  for  they  taught  a  false  observance  of  the  law, 
which  defeated  the  very  purpose  for  which  it  had  been 
given.4  A  large  part  of  Jesus'  energy  was  devoted  to  the 
undoing  of  the  mischief  which  they  had  done.  It  was  his 
great  endeavor  to  interpret  the  law  properly  and  to  show 
the  people  what  true  obedience  of  it  meant.  The  principle 
of  interpretation  he  found  in  love  for  God  and  man.  In 

1  Cf.  Matt.  vii.  21;  Mark  iii.  35.  3  Matt,  xxiii. 

2  Matt.  v.  17  sq.  4  Matt.  xv.  14,  xxiii.  16,  24. 


26  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE 

the  word  "love  "  the  spirit  and  conduct  of  the  true  son  are 
fully  expressed,  and  in  that  word  the  law,  which  is  noth- 
ing else  than  God's  revealed  will  for  the  government  of 
his  children's  lives,  maybe  comprehensively  summed  up.1 
But  the  application  of  that  principle  meant  an  entire 
change  of  emphasis  and  a  new  estimate  of  values.  It 
meant  that  the  external  rites  and  ceremonies,  which  con- 
stituted so  large  a  part  of  the  Jewish  law,  were  not  an 
end  in  themselves,  but  only  a  means  to  a  higher  end,  and 
that  they  had  value  only  because  they  expressed  and  pro- 
moted the  true  attitude  of  a  man  toward  God  and  his 
fellows.  Thus  the  offerings  and  the  sacrifices,  the  tithes, 
the  fasts,  and  the  Sabbath  observances  were  significant 
only  because  of  the  spirit  of  true  worship  that  voiced  itself 
in  them  and  was  nourished  by  them.  Jesus  did  riot  mean 
that  the  external  rites  and  ceremonies  were  to  be  neglected, 
but  that  they  were  to  be  used  as  aids  and  instruments  only, 
and  that  they  were  therefore  to  be  subordinated,  whenever 
they  came  in  conflict  with  them,  to  the  weightier  matters 
of  the  law,  to  judgment  and  mercy  and  faith.2  This 
principle  made  it  possible  for  Jesus  to  exercise  a  large 
measure  of  liberty  in  connection  with  the  law,  while  at 
the  same  time  maintaining  its  divine  character  and  in- 
culcating its  faithful  observance.3  That  he  anticipated 
that  the  law  would  ever  be  done  away  there  is  no  sign. 
He  saw  no  inconsistency  between  it  and  the  exercise  of 
love  toward  God  and  man,  and  it  perhaps  never  occurred 
to  him  that  the  time  would  yet  come  for  its  abrogation. 
He  certainly  observed  it  faithfully  himself,  and  he  spoke 
and  acted  in  such  a  way  that  his  disciples  did  not  think 
of  any  other  course  as  legitimate  or  possible. 

The  fact  that  Jesus  thus  maintained  a  conservative 
attitude  toward  the  law  does  not  indicate  that  he  meant 
to  exclude  Gentiles  from  the  kingdom  of  God.  It  is  true 

1  Matt.  xxii.  37. 

*Matt.  xxiii.  23:  "Ye  tithe  mint  and  anise  and  cummin,  and  have  left 
undone  the  weightier  matters  of  the  law,  judgment  and  mercy  and  faith:  but 
these  ye  ought  to  have  done,  and  not  to  have  left  the  other  undone."  Cf. 
Luke  xi.  42;  Matt.  v.  23;  Mark  vii.  10  sq. 

«  See  Matt.  xvii.  2(5 ;  Mark  ii.  27  sq.  and  parallels. 


THE   ORIGIN   OF   CHRISTIANITY  27 

that  during  the  earlier  part  of  his  ministry  he  seems  to 
have  had  only  his  own  countrymen  in  mind,1  but  before 
his  death,  when  he  realized  that  his  Gospel  would  be  re- 
jected by  the  nation  at  large,  he  distinctly  contemplated 
the  entrance  of  foreign  peoples  into  the  kingdom.2  And 
yet  even  then  he  said  nothing  of  an  abrogation  or  neglect 
of  the  Mosaic  law,  for  had  he  done  so,  we  should  certainly 
find  some  trace  of  his  words,  either  in  the  records  of  his 
life  or  in  the  conduct  of  his  followers.  He  perhaps  thought 
of  the  Gentiles  as  worshipping  and  serving  God  in  the 
same  way  that  the  Jews  did,  and  as  taking  their  place 
with  the  latter,  or  instead  of  the  latter,3  in  the  existing 
household  of  faith.  But  though  Jesus  thus  remained 
throughout  his  life  a  genuine  Jew,  both  in  precept  and 
practice,  he  nevertheless  gave  utterance  to  a  principle 
which  must  revolutionize  the  prevailing  conception 
of  the  law,  and  which  must  make  possible  an  attitude 
toward  it  very  different  from  that  of  the  Jews  in  general. 
If  the  law  was  a  means  only,  and  not  an  end  in  itself,  the 
time  might  coftie  when  its  usefulness  would  be  outlived 
and  when  it  would  need  to  be  done  away  in  order  that 
the  higher  end  which  it  was  meant  to  serve  might  be 
promoted  and  not  hindered.  That  time  did  not  come 
during  Jesus'  life,  and  he  gave  no  clear  indication  that 
he  expected  it  ever  to  come ;  but  the  subsequent  history 
of  Christianity  would  not  have  been  what  it  was  had  not 
his  principles  made  its  coming  possible. 

It  has  been  seen  that  the  supreme  condition  of  entrance 
into  the  kingdom  of  God,  according  to  the  teaching  of 
Jesus,  is  the  true  spirit  of  sonship.  To  this  one  condition 
he  adds  no  other.  Even  the  passages  in  which  he  empha- 
sizes the  importance  of  a  man's  belief  in,  or  attachment 
to  himself,  when  rightly  interpreted,  are  seen  to  involve 
nothing  more  or  different.  It  is  significant  that  during 
the  early  part  of  his  ministry,  according  to  the  account 
of  Mark,  who  reproduces  most  accurately  the  true  order 

1  Matt.  x.  5 ;  Mark  vii.  27. 

2  Matt.  viii.  11  sq.,  xxi.  43.    Compare  also  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  and  John  x.  Ifi, 
whose  authenticity  is  less  certain. 

8  Cf.  Matt.  viii.  12,  xxi.  43,  xxiii.  37. 


28  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

of  events,  Jesus  said  nothing  of  the  necessity  of  coming 
into  fellowship  with  himself.  Only  after  the  clear 
declaration  of  his  Messiahship  at  Csesarea  Philippi 1  did 
he  begin  to  bring  his  own  personality  forward  and  speak 
of  a  man's  relation  to  him  as  determining  in  any.  way 
his  character  or  destiny.  This  reticence,  however,  re- 
markable as  it  may  seem  at  first  sight,  was  entirely  in  line 
with  his  course  respecting  the  announcement  of  his  Mes- 
siahship. Though  he  already  believed  himself  to  be  the 
Christ,  he  began  his  ministry  not  writh  any  reference  to 
his  own  character  or  commission,  but  with  the  preaching 
of  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  he  systematically  refrained 
for  a  considerable  period  from  declaring  himself  to  be  the 
Messiah,  and  even  forbade  others  to  proclaim  him  as  such. 
The  incident  at  Csesarea  Philippi  marked  an  epoch  in  his 
ministry,  for  it  was  then  that  he  first  distinctly  acknowl- 
edged his  Messianic  calling  to  his  disciples,  and  even  then 
he  charged  them  that  they  should  tell  no  one  else.2  His 
first  public  admission  that  he  was  the  Messiah  seems  to 
have  been  made  only  at  the  very  close  of  his  life,  upon  the 
occasion  of  his  final  visit  to  Jerusalem.  Evidently  Jesus 
had  a  purpose  in  thus  concealing  his  Messiahship  for  so 
long  a  time.  Conscious,  as  he  was,  of  the  difference 
between  his  own  mission  and  work,  and  the  ideal  cher- 
ished by  the  majority  of  his  countrymen,  he  doubtlese 
feared  that  a  premature  declaration  would  arouse  false 
hopes  respecting  his  mission,  would  precipitate  an  im- 
mediate crisis,  and  would  make  it  impossible  for  him 
to  prepare  his  countrymen  as  he  wished  to  prepare  them 
for  the  coming  of  a  spiritual  kingdom.  Only  when  he 
realized  that  he  was  not  to  succeed  in  influencing  any 
great  number  of  the  people,  and  that,  on  the  contrary,  his 
speedy  death  was  inevitable,  does  he  seem  to  have  deemed 
it  necessary  to  declare  himself  clearly,  in  the  first  place  to 
his  disciples,  in  order  to  prepare  them  for  the  impending 
crisis,  and  finally  to  the  people  at  large.  And  so  when 
he  was  executed,  it  was  as  a  distinct  claimant  to  the  Mes- 
sianic dignity. 

i  Mark  viii.  27  sq.  and  parallels.  a  Mark  viii.  30. 


THE  ORIGIN   OF   CHRISTIANITY  29 

In  view  of  the  course  pursued  by  Jesus  in  this  matter,  it 
is  not  at  all  surprising  that  he  should  have  refrained 
during  the  earlier  months  of  his  ministry  from  emphasiz- 
ing the  importance  of  a  man's  attachment  to  himself,  and 
from  making  recognition  of  himself  a  condition  of  entrance 
into  the  kingdom  of  God.  But  there  are  in  our  Synoptic 
Gospels  some  utterances,  belonging,  according  to  Mark, 
to  the  latter  part  of  Jesus'  life,  in  which,  though  nothing 
is  said  about  faith  in  him,  a  man's  ultimate  salvation  is 
brought  into  some  kind  of  connection  with  his  attitude 
toward  Christ.  These  passages  are  not  numerous,  but 
some  of  them  are  very  striking.  Among  the  strongest  of 
them  are  such  as  the  following:  "Whosoever  shall  lose 
his  life  for  my  sake  and  the  gospel's  shall  save  it."1 
"  Whosoever  shall  be  ashamed  of  me  and  of  my  words  in 
this  adulterous  and  sinful  generation,  of  him  also  shall 
the  Son  of  man  be  ashamed  when  he  cometh  in  the  glory 
of  his  Father  with  the  holy  angels."2  "Whosoever 
shall  confess  me  before  men,  him  will  I  confess  also  before 
my  Father  which  is  in  heaven.  But  whosoever  shall  deny 
me  before  men,  him  will  I  also  deny  before  my  Father 
which  is  in  heaven."3  "Every  one  that  hath  left  houses, 
or  brethren,  or  sisters,  or  father,  or  mother,  or  children, 
or  lands  for  my  name's  sake,  shall  receive  an  hundredfold 
and  shall  inherit  eternal  life."4  To  these  are  to  be  added 
those  Johannine  passages  in  which  Jesus  connects  eternal 
life  with  belief  in  himself.  In  regard  to  all  these  utter- 
ances it  is  to  be  observed  that  it  is  not  the  failure  to 
believe  in  Christ,  or  the  failure  to  take  a  certain  attitude 
toward  him,  that  is  condemned  by  Jesus,  and  is  said  to 
involve  the  loss  of  future  salvation,  but  only  the  cowardly 
denial  of  him  by  his  followers,  or  the  wilful  refusal  to 
receive  his  message  by  those  to  whom  he  utters  that  mes- 
sage. While  in  many  other  passages  in  which  a  man's 
relation  to  Jesus  is  spoken  of,  it  is  his  relation  to  God 
which  is  made  the  important  thing,  and  belief  in  Christ, 
or  the  acceptance  of  him,  is  emphasized  because  it  means 

i  Mark  viii.  35.  2  Mark  viii.  38.  a  Matt.  x.  32,  33. 

4  Matt.  xix.  28,  29.    Compare  also  Matt.  viii.  22,  xix.  21. 


30  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

belief  in  or  acceptance  of  the  God  who  sent  him  and  whom 
he  reveals.  It  would  seem  in  the  light  of  these  facts  that 
when  Jesus  speaks  of  a  man's  relation  to  himself  as  deter- 
mining his  future  destiny,  he  is  not  enunciating  a  new 
condition  of  salvation  in  addition  to  the  general  condition 
already  described ;  is  not  requiring  something  more  than 
the  life  of  a  true  son  of  God,  but  is  thinking  of  a  man's 
connection  with  himself,  because  through  him  he  may 
acquire  a  knowledge  of  his  father  God  and  come  into  inti- 
mate fellowship  with  him.  In  assuming  as  unquestioned 
the  presence  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  in  the  king- 
dom of  heaven,1  Jesus  intimates  the  possibility  of  man's 
coming  into  fellowship  with  God  without  coming  into 
relation  to  the  Messiah.  At  the  same  time,  he  evidently 
believes,  and  indeed  in  a  number  of  cases,  according  to 
John,  he  distinctly  and  unequivocally  asserts,  that  no 
true  son  of  God  can  deny  him  or  refuse  to  receive  his 
message,  for  every  true  son  of  God  that  comes  into  contact 
with  him  will  inevitably  recognize  him  as  God's  mes- 
senger and  revealer.  We  may  conclude,  then,  that  Jesus' 
emphasis  of  faith  in  or  acceptance  of  himself,  is  through- 
out an  emphasis  not  of  his  personality  but  of  his  message, 
and  thus  simply  a  reassertion  of  filial  trust  in,  devotion 
to,  and  service  of  God,  as  the  essential  and  sufficient  con- 
dition of  an  eternal  life  of  blessedness  with  God  in  heaven. 
Thus  did  Jesus  in  all  his  teaching  endeavor  to  prepare 
the  minds  and  hearts  of  his  countrymen  for  the  kingdom 
of  God,  whose  approach  he  announced.  Nor  were  his 
efforts  entirely  without  effect.  Many  were  attracted  by 
him,  and  he  speedily  gathered  about  him  quite  a  company 
of  disciples,  who  did  not,  however,  regard  him  as  the 
Messiah,  at  least  for  some  time,  perhaps  the  majority  of 
them  not  until  almost  the  close  of  his  life.  Those  that  fol- 
lowed him,  so  far  as  they  were  not  actuated  by  mere  curi- 
osity,or  by  the  desire  to  enjoy  the  benefit  of  his  miraculous 
power,  did  it  very  much  for  the  same  reason  that  so  many 
had  followed  John  the  Baptist,  because  he  announced  the 
coming  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  because  they  believed 

1  Matt.  viii.  11. 


THE  ORIGIN   OF  CHRISTIANITY  31 

that  from  him  they  could  learn  the  time  and  the  conditions 
of  its  establishment,  and  in  his  company  could  best  prepare 
themselves  for  it.  But  before  he  died  Jesus  distinctly 
and  publicly  avowed  himself  to  be  the  Messiah,  and  thus 
his  work  took  on  an  aspect  very  different  from  that  of 
John  the  Baptist.  Even  after  his  death  John  was  regarded 
as  a  prophet  by  the  great  mass  of  the  people ;  but  when 
Jesus  died,  he  left  behind  him  only  those,  on  the  one 
hand,  who  believed  him  to  be  nothing  but  the  worst  of 
impostors,  and  those,  on  the  other  hand,  who  believed  him 
to  be  the  Messiah  in  spite  of  his  death.  The  bond  that 
thenceforth  bound  his  disciples  together  was  therefore 
very  different  from  that  which  united  John's  followers. 
The  latter  were  no  better  off  than  any  pious  Israelites  who 
might  be  looking  for  the  coming  of  the  kingdom.  But 
the  disciples  of  Jesus  were  awaiting  the  return  of  a  king 
whom  they  already  knew  and  loved,  and  who  had  with- 
drawn himself  only  for  a  brief  season  from  the  public  gaze. 
And  so,  though  Jesus  failed  to  secure  for  his  Gospel  of 
the  kingdom  the  acceptance  of  the  people  as  a  whole,  as 
he  had  once  hoped  to  do ;  though  he  left  behind  him  only 
a  small  company  of  disciples,  whose  numbers  were  doubt- 
less sadly  reduced  by  his  execution,  his  life  was  not  a 
failure,  and  he  knew  that  it  was  not ;  for  he  had  succeeded 
in  convincing  them  at  least,  if  not  others,  that  he  was 
actually  the  promised  Messiah,  and  that  the  Messianic 
kingdom  was  to  find  in  him  its  founder  and  its  head.  He 
had  thus  given  them  a  bond  of  union  which  he  knew 
would  serve  to  keep  them  his  until  the  consummation, 
and  would  nerve  and  inspire  them  to  carry  on  till  then 
the  work  of  preparation  which  he  could  not  live  to  com- 
plete. The  secret  of  his  historic  significance  lies  just  in 
this  fact. 

Jesus  Christ  has  been  thought  of  almost  from  the 
beginning  as  the  incarnation  of  deity  and  as  the  per- 
fect and  ideal  man.  But  it  was  not  upon  his  deity,  nor 
yet  upon  the  perfection  of  his  humanity,  that  his  dis- 
ciples founded  the  Christian  Church.  The  men  whom 
he  gathered  about  him  regarded  him  in  neither  of  these 


32  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

aspects.  They  thought  of  him  only  as  the  Messiah,  and  the 
fact  that  he  left  a  church  behind  him,  instead  of  a  mere 
name,  and  that  he  is  known  to  history  as  the  founder  of  a 
religion,  and  not  as  a  mere  sage  or  prophet,  is  historically 
due  not  so  much  to  the  uniqueness  of  his  character  or 
nature,  as  to  the  conviction  which  he  imparted  to  his  fol- 
lowers that  he  Avas  the  one  who  had  been  promised  by  the 
prophets  and  long  awaited  by  the  fathers.  It  is  true  that 
he  could  not  have  imparted  that  conviction,  in  the  face  of 
the  difficulties  with  which  it  was  beset,  had  he  not  been 
what  he  was ;  had  it  not  been  for  the  overmastering 
impression  made  by  his  life  and  character.  But  he  might 
have  been  all  that  he  was,  and  yet  have  accomplished 
little  more  than  John  the  Baptist  did,  had  he  not  stepped 
into  the  place  which  had  for  so  long  been  waiting  to  be 
filled,  and  become  the  centre  of  the  accumulated  hopes 
and  expectations  of  centuries.  The  Gospel  of  the  father- 
hood of  God  which  he  preached  and  lived  is  fitted  to 
reform  and  beautify  and  save  the  lives  of  men,  but  the 
revelation  of  that  Gospel  would  not  itself  have  resulted 
in  the  Christian  Church.  Only  the  belief  in  Jesus' 
Messiahship  could  effect  the  great  historic  movement 
which  bears,  not  his  personal,  but  his  official  name. 

It  was  doubtless  because  of  Jesus'  conviction  that  he 
would  be  put  to  death  before  the  full  accomplishment  of 
the  work  to  which  he  had  been  devoting  himself,  that  he 
turned  his  especial  attention,  during  the  latter  part  of  his 
ministry,  to  his  disciples,  endeavoring  to  equip  them  for 
the  important  duty  that  was  to  devolve  upon  them  after 
his  departure.  It  was  during  this  period  that  he  warned 
them  repeatedly  of  the  difficulties  and  dangers  which  they 
would  have  to  face ;  that  he  cautioned  them  to  be  firm 
and  steadfast,  and  encouraged  them  with  the  promise  of 
a  speedy  consummation,  when  their  faith  and  patience 
should  have  their  full  reward.  It  was  then,  also,  that  he 
promised  that  the  Holy  Spirit  should  be  sent  to  instruct 
and  assist  them,  and  that  he  himself  would  return  and 
abide  with  them.  It  is  to  be  doubted  whether  Jesus  meant 
to  separate  sharply  his  own  coming  and  the  coming  of  the 


THE   ORIGIN    OF   CHRISTIANITY  33 

Spirit.  It  is  more  probable  that  he  thought  of  the  Spirit 
of  God  as  mediating  his  fellowship  with  his  disciples,  as 
the  power  enabling  them  to  see  him  with  their  spiritual 
vision,  to  be  conscious  of  his  abiding  presence,  and  to 
live  in  constant  communion  with  him.  His  promise,  then, 
began  to  find  fulfilment,  not  when  the  Spirit  came  at  Pen- 
tecost, but  long  before  Pentecost,  when,  after  his  death 
and  the  season  of  despair  that  followed,  his  disciples 
became  convinced  that  he  still  lived  and  again  entered 
into  joyful  fellowship  with  him,  a  fellowship  permanent 
and  unbroken.1 

And  so  Jesus  did  not  regard  his  death  as  putting  a  stop 
to  his  work,  or  as  involving  the  destruction  of  the  cause 
for  which  he  had  lived  and  labored.  Indeed,  before  the 
end  came,  he  had  learned  to  look  upon  his  death  as  a 
positive  advantage  to  the  cause  so  dear  to  his  heart  and 
as  a  means  of  advancing  the  interests  of  the  kingdom 
of  God.  He  told  his  disciples  distinctly,  according  to 
John's  Gospel,  that  it  was  better  for  him  to  die,  because 
then  the  Spirit  could  come,  and  his  coming  would  prove 
a  greater  blessing  than  their  master's  continued  bodily 
presence.  He  saw  that  only  when  he  was  gone  from 
them,  could  their  earthly  ideas  and  ideals  be  finally  done 
away,  and  they  understand  fully  the  spiritual  conceptions 

1  There  is  no  indication  in  our  sources  that  Jesus  thought  of  the  coming  of 
the  Spirit  as  instituting  a  new  stage  in  the  Kingdom  of  God,  or  as  constituting 
the  establishment  of  the  Kingdom  in  any  sense.  He  thought,  so  far  as  our 
sources  enable  us  to  judge,  of  only  two  stages  of  the  Kingdom ;  the  one  al- 
ready begun  with  the  gathering  of  disciples  about  himself  on  earth,  the  other 
to  be  ushered  in  by  his  return  in  glory  at  the  end  of  the  present  aeon.  Through 
the  Spirit  his  continued  fellowship  with  his  disciples  was  to  be  made  possible, 
and  he  was  thus  to  be  in  his  Kingdom  on  earth  as  truly  after  his  death  as  before. 
The  dispensation  of  the  Spirit  therefore  is  not  to  be  distinguished  from  the 
dispensation  of  Christ.  He  himself  was  in  the  Spirit  when  on  earth;  his 
possession  by  the  Spirit  was  in  fact  one  of  the  most  notable  features  of  his  life 
and  work  (cf.  Matt.  iii.  16,  iv.  1,  xii.  18;  Mark  i.  10,  12;  Luke  iv.  1,  14,  18; 
John  i.  32,  33 ;  also  Matt.  xii.  28,  where  Jesus  says,  "  If  I  by  the  Spirit  of  God 
cast  out  devils,"  while  in  the  parallel  passage,  in  Luke  xi.  20,  the  phrase 
"finger  of  God  "  is  used.  Compare  also  the  impression  produced  by  Jesus 
upon  his  enemies,  who  declared  that  he  was  possessed  of  a  devil;  Mark  iii. 
22,  30 ;  Matt.  ix.  34 ;  John  viii.  48,  x.  20 ;  see  Gunkel :  Wirkungen  des  heiligen 
Geistes,  S.  37).  And  so  after  his  death  Jesus  simply  continued  to  abide  with 
his  disciples  in  the  Spirit.  This  at  any  rate  is  the  impression  produced  by  the 
words  of  Jesus  recorded  in  John,  who  reproduces  his  utterances  upon  the  sub- 
ject most  fully,  and  doubtless  with  substantial  accuracy. 

D 


34  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

and  appreciate  the  spiritual  values  of  which  he  had  been 
endeavoring  to  tell  them.  Thus  he  believed  that  bodily 
separation  would  bring  about  a  closeness  of  communion 
such  as  he  and  his  disciples  had  not  hitherto  enjoyed,  and 
would  enable  them  to  testify  of  him  with  a  power  and 
wisdom  not  hitherto  possible. 

But  Jesus  was  not  only  convinced  that  his  death  would 
thus  lead  to  good  results,  he  also  believed  that  it  possessed 
a  real  value  and  significance  of  its  own.  When  he  saw  that 
death  was  inevitable,  he  seems  also  to  have  realized  at  the 
same  time  that  it  was  the  consistent  carrying  out  of  that 
principle  of  the  kingdom  to  which  he  gave  such  frequent 
utterance,  —  the  principle  of  self-denying,  self -renouncing 
service,  —  and  to  have  believed  that  the  sacrifice  of  his 
life,  as  the  supreme  act  of  service,  would  inevitably 
redound  to  the  good  of  all  his  disciples,  of  all  those  for 
whose  sake  that  sacrifice  was  made.  It  is  significant  that 
in  connection  with  the  first  announcement  of  his  death, 
Jesus  emphasized  self-denial  as  a  condition  of  discipleship, 
and  even  went  so  far  as  to  say,  "  Whosoever  shall  lose  his 
life  for  my  sake  and  the  gospel's,  shall  save  it."1  Both 
then  and  later,  when  he  spoke  of  the  cup  which  he  had 
to  drink  and  of  his  life  given  for  the  ransom  of  many,  he 
made  his  own  ministry,  even  unto  death,  an  example  for 
his  followers,  and  pointed  to  it  as  the  strongest  kind  of  an 
expression  of  the  principle  of  service  which  he  preached. 
But  Jesus  represented  his  death  not  simply  as  an  act,  and 
the  supreme  act,  of  service,  but  also,  at  the  time  of  the 
last  supper,  as  a  sacrifice  offered  for  the  sealing  of  the 
covenant  which  God  made  with  his  disciples,  just  as 
the  earlier  covenant  had  been  sealed  by  a  sacrifice  at 
Horeb.2  This  idea  of  the  significance  of  his  death  can 
hardly  have  been  in  Jesus'  mind  from  the  beginning,  for 
he  makes  no  other  reference  to  such  a  covenant,  and  his 
earlier  allusions  to  his  death  indicate  that  he  found  the 
reason  for  it  in  the  principle  of  service,  and  not  in  the 

1  Mark  viii.  35. 

2  Ex.  xxiv.  1-12.    Cf .  Briggs :  Messiah  of  the  Gospels,  p.  120  sq.    See  also 
p.  69,  below. 


THE  ORIGIN   OF  CHRISTIANITY  35 

need  of  a  covenant  sacrifice.  The  fact  of  his  impending 
death,  however,  once  accepted  and  accounted  for,  he 
might  easily  see  in  it  another  significance  which  would 
give  it  an  increased  value ;  might  interpret  it  in  the  light 
of  Jewish  history,  and  thus  make  it  of  added  worth  in 
its  bearing  upon  the  future.  As  the  call  of  the  Jewish 
nation  to  be  God's  peculiar  people,  and  to  enjoy  peculiar 
favors  from  his  hand,  had  been  sealed  by  a  covenant 
sacrifice,  so  it  seemed  most  natural  that  the  call  of  a  new 
people  to  be  heirs  of  the  eternal  blessings  of  the  future 
should  likewise  be  sealed  by  a  sacrifice.  Thus  Jesus 
believed  that  his  death  meant,  in  more  than  one  way,  not 
evil  but  good  to  the  kingdom  of  God.  Thus  he  could  go 
to  his  death  not  only  with  calm  resignation,  but  with 
exultation,  for  he  knew  that  ultimate  and  eternal  victory 
lay  that  way,  not  for  him  alone,  but  for  the  great  cause  of 
his  father  God. 


CHAPTER  II 

PKIMITIVE   JEWISH   CHRISTIANITY 

1.   THE  NEW  BEGINNING 

THE  immediate  effect  of  Jesus'  crucifixion,  according  to 
our  earliest  sources,  was  the  dispersion  of  his  disciples.1 
In  spite  of  the  fact  that  he  had  endeavored  so  to  prepare 
them  for  his  approaching  death  that  they  should  not  be 
thrown  into  confusion  by  it,  but  should  immediately  take 
up  the  work  which  he  had  begun  and  carry  it  on  without 
interruption,  when  his  death  came  it  found  them  unpre- 
pared, and  it  left  them  apparently  demoralized.  •  Our 
sources  do  not  warrant  us  in  asserting  positively  that  his 
disciples  had  no  idea  that  he  would  die,2  but  they  make 
it  clear  that  they  were  distressed  and  bewildered  by  his 
death.  If  it  be  assumed,  then,  that  they  did  expect  it, 
we  mu'st  conclude  that  they  had  supposed  it  would  be 
immediately  followed  by  such  a  manifestation  of  God's 
power  as  should  vindicate  their  faith  in  Jesus,  and  intro- 
duce the  consummation  of  the  kingdom  for  which  they 
were  looking,  and  upon  which  all  their  hopes  were 
centred.  We  must  conclude,  in  other  words,  that  they 
believed  his  death  would  be  but  his  translation  into  the 
heavenly  sphere,  in  order  that  he  might  at  once  appear  in 
glory  as  the  conquering  Messiah.  For  a  death  unaccom- 
panied by  any  such  manifestation  they  were  certainly  not 
prepared.  Nor  were  they  prepared  for  his  bodily  resurrec- 
tion after  three  days  and  for  his  reappearance  in  the  same 
form  which  he  had  worn  before  his  execution.  There  are, 
it  is  true,  a  number  of  passages  in  our  sources  in  which 

1  Matt.  xxvi.  31,  56;  Mark  xiv.  27,  50. 
*  But  Luke  xxiv.  21  certainly  points  in  that  direction. 
36 


PRIMITIVE   JEWISH   CHRISTIANITY  37 

Jesus  is  represented  as  explicitly  telling  his  disciples  that 
he  would  rise  from  the  dead  after  three  days.1  But  it  is 
clear,  in  the  light  of  their  subsequent  attitude,  that  they 
must  have  interpreted  his  words,  if  they  attached  any 
meaning  to  them,  not  as  a  promise  of  his  reappearance  to 
them  in  his  old  form,  but  as  an  assurance  of  his  immediate 
entrance  after  death  upon  the  glorious  career  of  the  con- 
quering and  reigning  Messiah.2 

But  though  the  disciples  seem  not  to  have  been  pre- 
pared for  either  the  death  or  the  resurrection  of  Jesus, 
nothing  is  more  certain  than  that  within  a  few  days,  or 
at  most  within  a  few  weeks,  after  his  execution,  they 
reached  the  assured  conviction  that  he  still  lived.  More- 
over, there  can  be  no  question  that  the  basis  of  this  confi- 
dence was  found  in  appearances  of  the  risen  Lord,  which 
were  of  such  a  character  as  to  convince  his  followers  of 
their  absolute  reality.  A  number  of  manifestations  are 
mentioned  in  our  sources,  but  the  accounts  differ  so 
widely,  that  it  is  impossible  to  construct  a  consistent  nar- 
rative which  shall  include  all  the  details.3  But  we  shall 


1  In  Mark  we  have  uniformly  yuera  T/>e?s  ^pas  (viii.  31,  ix.  21,  x.  34)  ;  in 
Matthew  and  Luke  tv  rrj  Tpirrj  -rj^pqi  (Matt.  xvi.  21,  xvii.  23,  xx.  19;  Luke 
ix.  22,  xviii.  23).    The  former  is  evidently  the  original  form,  the  phrase  of 
Matthew  and  Luke  being  an  effort  to  make  the  statement  more  precise. 
Compare  also  Mark  ix.  9  and  Matt.  xvii.  9,  where  the  resurrection  is  referred 
to  without  a  reference  to  the  "  three  days." 

2  It  is  significant  that  Jesus  in  none  of  the  passages  in  question  makes  his 
resurrection  a  hodily  resurrection,  or  speaks  of  his  bodily  reappearance  to  his 
disciples.    He  simply  refers  to  a  resurrection  without  more  nearly  defining  its 
nature,  and  it  was  therefore  quite  possible  for  his  disciples  to  interpret  his  words 
as  a  promise  of  his  immediate  entrance  after  death  upon  his  Messianic  career. 
Mark  and  Luke,  who,  of  course,  when  they  wrote  their  Gospels,  interpreted  the 
words  in  question  as  referring  to  Jesus'  bodily  resurrection  and  reappearance 
to  his  disciples,  distinctly  say  that  the  latter  did  not  understand  what  his  words 
meant  (Mark  ix.  10,  32;  Luke  xviii.  34). 

It  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  the  words  "  after  three  days  "  were  used 
by  Jesus  or  understood  by  his  disciples  as  referring  to  a  fixed  and  definite 
interval,  for  the  phrase  was  a  proverbial  one  to  denote  a  very  brief  period  of 
time,  and  might  therefore  have  been  employed  in  the  present  case  simply  to 
emphasize  the  immediateness  of  his  restoration  to  life.  Compare  Hos.  vi.  2  ; 
Mark  xv.  29  ;  Luke  xiii.  32;  John  ii.  19;  and  see  Weiss,  Biblische  Theologie, 
6te  Auflage,  S.  67  (Eng.  Trans.,  Vol.  I.  p.  90),  and  Wendt,  Lehre  Jesu,  II.  S. 
545  (Eng.  Trans.,  Vol.  II.  p.  269). 

8  An  appearance  to  Mary  Magdalene  is  recorded  by  the  Gospel  of  John  and 
the  appendix  of  Mark's  Gospel  ;  to  Mary  Magdalene  and  another  Mary  by  the 
Gospel  of  Matthew.  But  Paul  in  1  Cor.  xv.,  where  he  enumerates  various 


38  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

doubtless  be  nearest  the  actual  facts  if  we  assume  that  the 
great  majority  of  Jesus'  disciples,  dismayed  by  his  awful 
death,  fled  in  fear  and  discouragement  to  Galilee,  where 
most  of  them  had  their  homes,  and  that  they  there  became 
convinced  that  their  Master  still  lived,  and,  with  this  con- 
viction already  established,  made  their  way  back  speedily 
to  Jerusalem.  It  is  here  that  we  find  them  in  the  opening 
chapter  of  the  Acts,  which  represents  Jesus  as  appearing 
and  conversing  with  them  during  a  period  of  forty  days, 
after  which  "  he  was  taken  up,  and  a  cloud  received  him 
out  of  their  sight."1 

This  is  the  most  explicit  account  of  the  ascension  to 
be  found  in  the  New  Testament.  The  Gospels,  with  the 
exception  of  the  appendix  of  Mark,  contain  no  record  of  it.2 

manifestations  of  the  risen  Jesus,  does  not  mention  such  an  appearance,  nor 
do  the  Gospel  of  Mark  and  the  recently  discovered  Gospel  of  Peter.  The 
Gospel  of  Luke,  though  it  refers  to  the  presence  of  the  women  at  the  sepulchre 
and  the  angels'  announcement  of  Jesus'  resurrection,  evidently  knows  nothing 
of  his  manifestation  to  them  (cf.  Luke  xxiv.  5,  22).  Paul,  in  the  epistle 
already  referred  to,  which  constitutes  a  source  of  the  first  rank  and  whose 
account  of  the  resurrection  is  of  indisputable  trustworthiness,  mentions  first 
of  all  an  appearance  of  the  risen  Lord  to  Peter,  as  if  he  knew  of  no  earlier 
ones  or  considered  them  of  no  importance.  Of  such  an  especial  manifestation 
to  Peter  we  have  no  record  in  our  Gospels  except  in  Luke  xxiv.  34,  where  the 
disciples  of  Jerusalem  are  represented  as  saying,  "  The  Lord  is  risen  indeed  and 
has  appeared  unto  Simon."  But  there  is  some  confusion  in  our  sources  not 
only  as  to  the  persons  to  whom  the  risen  Jesus  appeared,  but  also  as  to  the 
place  where  his  appearances  took  place.  Matthew  and  Mark  agree  in  sending 
the  disciples  to  Galilee  for  a  meeting  with  the  Master  there  (Matt,  xxviii.  7, 
10;  Mark  xvi.  7;  cf.  also  Matt.  xxvi.  32;  Mark  xiv.  28),  and  that  meeting  is 
described  by  Matthew  in  xxviii.  16  (cf.  also  the  Gospel  of  Peter).  On  the 
other  hand,  while  Matthew  records  appearances  both  in  Galilee  and  Jerusalem, 
the  appendix  of  Mark,  Luke,  and  John  (if  John  xxi.,  which  is  a  later  addition 
to  the  Gospel,  be  left  out  of  sight)  report  such  appearances  only  in  Jerusalem 
and  its  vicinity.  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  John  was  ignorant  of  the 
Galilean  meeting;  the  closing  verses  of  chap.  xx.  may  include  Galilee  as  well 
as  Jerusalem, and  the  episode  related  in  chap,  xxi.,  though  not  recorded  in  the 
original  Gospel,  implies  an  acquaintance  in  John's  immediate  circle  with  an 
independent  tradition  of  days  spent  in  Galilee.  Of  Luke,  however,  less  can 
be  said.  His  silence  both  in  the  Gospel  and  in  the  Acts  can  be  explained  only 
on  the  supposition  that  he  knew  nothing  of  a  post-resurrection  visit  to  Galilee. 
Indeed,  the  account  given  in  the  Gospel  is  so  constructed  as  to  seem  to  exclude 
such  a  visit  (cf .  especially  xxiv.  36,  44,  and  49) . 

1  Acts  i.  9. 

2  The  textus  receptus  of  Luke  xxiv.  51,  52  is  untrustworthy,  for  the  words 
/cai  dvefitpero  cis  rbv  ovpavbv  and  TrpoaKvvhffavTes  avrbv  aro  wanting  in  the  best 
manuscripts,  and  are  bracketed  by  Westcott  and  Hort.    The  Gospel  of  John, 
though  it  does  not  record  the  ascension,  refers  to  it  indirectly  by  anticipation 
in  vi.  62  and  xx.  17. 


PRIMITIVE   JEWISH   CHRISTIANITY  39 

But  the  exaltation  of  Jesus  to  the  right  hand  of  God, 
from  whence  he  is  to  come  again,  forms  an  integral 
part  of  the  earliest  Christian  tradition,  and  is  referred 
to  in  many  passages.1  Of  course,  such  exaltation  pre- 
supposes an  ascension,  but  the  stress  is  commonly  laid 
upon  the  former  rather  than  upon  the  latter.  Indeed,  it 
may  fairly  be  assumed  from  the  silence  of  Matthew  and 
Mark,  that  in  the  earliest  form  of  the  Gospel  tradition, 
the  ascension  was  not  reported  at  all,  and  that  Luke,  in 
his  account,  follows,  as  in  so  many  cases,  an  independent 
source.  It  may  well  be  that  in  the  beginning  the  act  of 
ascension  was  looked  upon  as  of  minor  importance;  given 
the  resurrection  and  the  exaltation,  the  ascension  followed 
as  a  matter  of  course,  and  testimony  to  the  event  was  quite 
superfluous.  We  may  perhaps  go  still  further,  and  say 
that  originally  the  disciples  did  not  draw  a  sharp  line  of 
distinction  between  the  numerous  sudden  departures  of 
Christ,  when  he  "vanished  from  their  sight,"  and  such  a 
final  departure  as  is  recorded  in  the  first  chapter  of  Acts. 
The  latter  may  have  been  marked  off  from  the  others  as 
unique  and  of  especial  significance  only  after  reflection 
upon  the  exaltation  of  Christ  and  upon  his  second  coming, 
both  of  which  were  so  prominent  in  the  minds  of  the  early 
believers.2 

We  should  hardly  expect,  after  what  has  been  said,  to 
find  any  very  exact  data  as  to  the  length  of  time  during 
which  the  risen  Jesus  appeared  to  his  disciples.  Mat- 
thew's account  implies  a  period  of  at  least  some  days ; 3 
John's  involves  a  week,  and  with  the  appendix  some  time 
longer;  while  the  Book  of  Acts,  which  represents  at  this 
point  the  latest  stage  of  development,  fixes  the  time  at 
forty  days.  The  accounts  given  in  the  appendix  of  Mark 
and  in  Luke's  Gospel  necessitate  but  a  single  day,  and 

1  Acts  ii.  33,  v.  31,  vii.  56,  ix.  5;  Eph.  i.  20;  1  Tim.  iii.  16;  Heb.  i.  3,  x.  12, 
etc.    Also  in  Jesus'  apocalyptic  discourses  recorded  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels. 

2  Compare  the  words  "This  Jesus  which  was  received  up  from  you  into 
heaven  shall  so  come  in  like  manner  as  ye  beheld  him  going  into  heaven" 
(Acts  i.  11),  where  the  manner  of  the  ascension  is  emphasized.     One  might 
almost  think  that  these  words  were  the  result  of  reflection  upon  the  second 
coming. 

8  This  is  true  also  of  the  Gospel  of  Peter. 


40  TTTE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

all  the  events  recorded  by  the  latter  seem  on  their  face  to 
have  taken  place  within  that  time.  This,  however,  can- 
not be  pressed,  and  we  are  not  justified  in  asserting  that 
in  the  Acts  Luke  contradicts,  either  intentionally  or  un- 
intentionally, his  account  in  the  Gospel.  He  may  have 
come  into  possession  of  new  information  since  writing  his 
earlier  work,  but  had  he  regarded  it  as  contravening  the 
statements  of  that  work,  he  could  hardly  have  let  those 
statements  go  unconnected.1  There  is  thus  no  adequate 
ground  for  denying  that  the  manifestations  of  the  risen 
Jesus  continued  for  at  least  some  weeks,  as  recorded  in  the 
first  chapter  of  Acts,  and  as  a  matter  of  fact  the  appear- 
ances referred  to  by  Paul  in  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  First 
Corinthians  can  hardly  be  crowded  into  a  shorter  period. 
The  effect  upon  Jesus'  disciples  of  his  death  and  of  the 
remarkable  events  that  followed  was  very  great.  It  could 
not  be  otherwise  than  that  a  change  in  their  thinking  and 
living  should  be  wrought  by  such  occurrences.  That 
change  was  most  momentous  in  its  consequences.  There 
are  many  indications  in  our  Gospels  that  during  his  life- 
time the  followers  of  Jesus  were  looking  forward  to  his 
speedy  establishment  of  an  earthly  kingdom.  Even  his 
announcement  of  his  death  does  not  seem  to  have  changed 
their  expectations  in  this  regard.  If  they  believed  he  would 
die,  they  evidently  believed,  as  has  already  been  remarked, 
that  his  death  would  only  usher  in  the  consummation, 
and  that  he  would  immediately  appear  upon  the  clouds 
as  the  conquering  Messiah,  to  set  up  his  kingdom  on  earth 

1  Luke's  words  in  Acts  i.  2  seem  really  to  indicate  that  he  regarded  the 
account  given  in  his  Gospel  as  covering  the  entire  post-resurrection  period. 
Whether  the  "forty  days"  mentioned  in  the  Acts  represent  a  common  and 
widespread  tradition  among  the  early  disciples  we  do  not  know.  The  absence 
of  all  reference  to  the  number  of  days  in  other  early  documents  argues  against 
the  general  prevalence  of  such  a  tradition,  and  it  is  interesting  to  notice  that 
the  author  of  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas  was  not  acquainted  with  it,  or  at  least 
did  not  accept  it,  for  he  says  in  chap,  xv.,  "  wherefore  also  we  keep  the  eighth 
day  with  joyfulness,  the  day  also  on  which  Jesus  rose  from  the  dead  and  was 
manifested,  and  ascended  into  heaven  "  (the  passage  is  mistranslated  in  the 
Edinburgh  and  American  editions  of  the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers) .  Here  the  ascen- 
sion is  distinguished  from  the  resurrection  and  yet  put  on  a  Sunday,  either  the 
Sunday  of  the  resurrection,  as  seems  probable,  or  on  some  subsequent  Sunday. 
In  either  case  Barnabas  disagrees  with  the  first  chapter  of  Ac-Is,  unless  the 
"  forty  days"  mentioned  there  are  to  be  taken  simply  as  a  round  number. 


PRIMITIVE  JEWISH  CHRISTIANITY  41 

and  to  assert  his  dominion  over  all  peoples.  Even  after 
his  resurrection,  they  seem  still  to  have  held  for  a  time 
substantially  the  same  idea.1  His  death,  unaccompanied 
as  it  was  with  convincing  evidence  of  his  Messiahship, 
had  bewildered  and  distressed  them,  but  his  reappearance 
had  revived  all  their  old  hopes  in  an  unchanged  form,  and 
they  expected  now  the  immediate  accomplishment  of  that 
for  which  they  had  so  long  been  looking.  His  resurrec- 
tion they  thought  must  be  for  this  and  for  no  other  pur- 
pose. But  it  was  not  for  this  purpose,  and  they  speedily 
discovered  the  fact.  He  reappeared,  indeed,  only  to  leave 
them  again  and  ascend  to  heaven.  His  departure,  then, 
must  mean  one  of  two  things :  either  their  hopes  were 
vain  and  the  kingdom  upon  earth  for  which  they  had  been 
looking  was  never  to  have  an  existence,  or  the  time  for 
its  establishment  was  not  yet  come.  It  is  of  the  greatest 
historic  moment,  that  the  disciples  adopted  not  the  for- 
mer but  the  latter  alternative.  Our  sources  show  that 
they,  and  almost  the  entire  early  church  after  them,  con- 
tinued to  believe  that  an  earthly  kingdom  was  yet  to  be 
founded  by  Christ.  But  if  the  time  for  its  establishment 
was  postponed  by  Jesus'  departure  from  the  earth,  it  was 
evident  that  the  work  of  preparation  must  still  go  on,  and 
thus  there  was  thrust  upon  the  disciples  a  new  and  unex- 
pected duty.  Upon  them  rested  the  responsibility  of 
carrying  on,  until  the  consummation,  the  work  which 
Jesus  had  begun.  They  felt  themselves  now  called  to 
take  up  the  task  which  he  had  laid  down ;  called  to  enter 
upon  a  new  mission,  which  was  not  to  cease  until  he 
returned  in  glory  upon  the  clouds  of  heaven.  Up  to  the 
time  of  Jesus'  death  they  had  been  simply  followers;  now 
they  were  to  be  leaders.  While  he  was  with  them,  they 
had  simply  to  learn  of  him,  to  attend  him,  to  be  his  faith- 
ful adherents,  that  they  might  be  ready  to  share  with  him 
in  the  glory  of  the  coming  kingdom.  Now  there  fell  to 
them  another  task :  they  must  seek  to  prepare  others  for 

1  Cf .  Acts  i.  6:  "Lord,  dost  thou  at  this  time  restore  the  kingdom  to 
Israel?"  where  not  only  the  earthly  but  the  national  character  of  their 
hopes  is  clearly  revealed.  The  question  is  of  too  primitive  a  character  to 
suppose  it  the  invention  of  a  later  generation. 


42  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

the  consummation,  as  he  had  prepared  them;  they  must 
gather  disciples  into  the  kingdom,  as  he  had  done ;  they 
must,  if  they  could,  secure  for  him  the  adherence  of  the 
Jewish  nation,  which  had  rejected  him,  that  the  nation 
as  a  whole  might  become  the  kingdom  of  God. 

It  was  this  sense  of  a  new  duty  and  responsibility  that 
led  them  back  from  Galilee  to  Jerusalem.  In  Jerusalem, 
the  political  and  religious  centre  of  Judaism,  where  were 
gathered  the  leaders  arid  teachers  of  the  people,  and  where 
every  movement  that  claimed  to  be  of  national  significance 
must  finally  be  vindicated  or  condemned;  in  Jerusalem 
itself,  where  their  Master  had  met  his  fate,  they  must 
bear  their  testimony  and  proclaim  him  openly  as  the 
Messiah.  The  disciples'  return  to  the  city  with  this 
determination  constitutes  an  epoch  in  the  history  of 
Christianity.  It  marks  a  new  beginning,  a  resumption 
of  the  great  work  which  had  been  begun  by  Jesus,  but 
had  been  interrupted  by  his  crucifixion.  The  cause  for 
which  he  had  given  his  life  was  hanging  in  the  balance 
during  the  dark  days  succeeding  his  death.  Was  his  work 
to  be  all  for  naught  ?  Was  his  memory  to  perish  from  the 
earth?  That  Christianity  has  had  a  history  is  due  to  the 
fact  that  these  disciples  did  not  go  back  disheartened  to 
their  old  pursuits  and  live  on  as  if  they  had  never  known 
him,  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  filled  with  the  belief  that 
their  Master  still  lived,  and  conscious  of  holding  a  com- 
mission from  him,  they  banded  themselves  together  with 
the  resolve  of  completing  his  work  and  preparing  their 
countrymen  for  his  return.  Their  resolve,  put  into  exe- 
cution when  they  left  Galilee  and  returned  to  Jerusalem, 
marks  the  real  starting-point  in  the  history  of  the  church. 

But  this  was  not  all.  The  resurrection  and  exaltation 
of  Jesus  had  yet  another  important  effect  upon  his  dis- 
ciples. Originally  they  seem  to  have  thought  of  him 
as  only  a  prophet;  as  a  preacher  of  the  kingdom  of 
God,  but  not  its  founder.  But  gradually  they  became 
convinced  that  he  was  himself  the  Messiah,  and  thai 
he  would  yet  assume  his  Messianic  dignity.  His  resur- 
rection and  exaltation  then  could  hardly  mean  anything 


PRIMITIVE  JEWISH   CHRISTIANITY  43 

else  to  them  than  his  assumption  of  that  dignity.  When 
they  had  found  their  way  back  to  Jerusalem,  they  testified 
not  merely  to  what  they  believed  or  hoped,  but  to  what 
they  had  seen.  It  was  not  that  Jesus  was  to  become  the 
Messiah  when  he  returned  upon  the  clouds  of  heaven,  but 
that  he  had  become  the  Messiah  when  he  entered  into 
heaven.1  He  would  return  not  with  a  new  glory  that  was 
not  yet  his,  but  with  a  glory  which  he  already  possessed 
and  which  they  had  witnessed.  That  he  had  not  already 
ushered  in  his  kingdom  and  begun  his  reign,  was  not 
because  he  lacked  Messianic  authority  and  power,  but 
because  his  people  were  not  yet  prepared.  The  heavens 
must  receive  him  for  a  little  while  until  they  repented 
arid  were  ready  to  welcome  his  return.2 

There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  in  the  thought  of  Jesus 
his  resurrection  and  ascension  marked  such  a  crisis  as  it 
did  in  the  thought  of  his  disciples.  Our  Gospels  indi- 
cate that  he  regarded  himself  as  already  fulfilling  Messi- 
anic functions  even  during  his  earthly  life.  His  assump- 
tion of  the  power  to  forgive  sins,  where  it  is  evidently  a 
Messianic  forgiveness  that  he  dispenses;  his  constant 
exercise  of  authority  over  demons,  which  he  cites  as  a 
proof  that  the  kingdom  is  already  established,  and  his 
delegation  of  that  authority  to  his  disciples  ;  his  avowed 
Lordship  over  the  Sabbath;  his  tacit  acceptance  of  the 
title  of  king,  with  which  his  followers  hail  him  upon  his 
entrance  into  Jerusalem,  and  his  express  adoption  of  that 
title  in  the  presence  of  Pilate,  —  all  go  to  show  that  he 
looked  upon  himself  as  already  the  reigning  and  not 
simply  the  teaching  Messiah.  Moreover,  it  should  not 
be  overlooked  that  his  conception  of  service  was  such  that 
he  found  in  his  ministering  life  and  death  on  earth  the 
most  genuine  exercise  of  his  Messianic  sovereignty,  and 
we  should  make  him  untrue  to  himself,  if  we  assumed 
that  he  saw  in  his  heavenly  existence,  or  in  his  continued 
presence  with  his  disciples  after  death,  or  in  his  guidance 


1  In  Acts  ii.  36  Peter  says:   "God  hath  made  (tTroltivev)  this  Jesus  both 
Lord  and  Christ."    Thus  according  to  Peter's  view  Jesus  assumed  his  Messiah- 
ship  wheu  he  ascended  to  heaven.    Cf.  also  Acts  v.  31. 

2  Acts  iii.  21. 


44  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

of  them  through  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  even  in  his  exercise 
of  judgment  at  his  final  advent  upon  the  clouds  of  glory, 
an  enthronement  higher  or  more  truly  Messianic  than  he 
already  enjoyed.  To  say,  then,  that  the  disciples  of  Jesus 
regarded  his  departure  from  earth  as  his  induction  into 
the  office  of  Messiah  does  not  mean  that  Jesus  himself 
looked  upon  it  thus.  But  historically  the  important  fact 
is,  that  whatever  Jesus  may  have  thought,  his  followers 
distinguished  sharply  between  his  earthly  and  heavenly 
existence,  and  saw  in  his  entrance  upon  the  latter  the 
assumption  of  Messianic  authority,  and  thus  the  pledge 
and  guarantee  of  his  return  to  exercise  that  authority  on 
earth.  . 

It  was  therefore  as  witnesses,  prepared  by  what  they 
had  themselves  seen,  to  testify  to  the  Messianship  of 
Jesus,  that  these  disciples  returned  to  Jerusalem  with 
the  purpose  of  convincing  others  of  the  truth  which  meant 
so  much  to  them.  That  some  days  should  be  spent  before 
their  public  work  began,  in  gathering  together  their  scat- 
tered forces,  and  in  fitting  themselves  by  prayer  and 
mutual  converse  for  the  task  that  lay  before  them,  was  but 
natural,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  the  general  accu- 
racy of  the  account  of  those  days  contained  in  Acts  i. 
13-26.  The  idea  that  the  apostolate  should  be  kept  at 
twelve,  and  that  consequently  it  was  necessary  to  fill  the 
place  made  vacant  by  the  treachery  and  death  of  Judas,  is 
thoroughly  characteristic  of  the  early  Jewish  disciples.1 
In  his  original  appointment  of  the  Twelve  Jesus  un- 
doubtedly had  a  symbolic  reference  to  the  twelve  tribes 
of  Israel,  and  it  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  his 
disciples  should  have  thought  it  necessary  to  preserve 
the  symbolism  by  keeping  the  number  intact.  They 
certainly  anticipated  at  this  time  neither  an  apostolate 
to  the  Gentiles  which  should  deprive  the  symbolism  of  its 

1  Peter  of  course  did  not  utter  all  the  words  that  are  contained  in  vss. 
16-22.  But  if  vss.  18  and  19  be  regarded  as  an  insertion  of  the  author,  as  they 
commonly  are,  there  remains  nothing  that  may  not  have  been  said  by  Peter; 
and  if  vs.  17  also  be  ascribed  to  Luke,  the  speech  forms  a  consistent  whole. 
But  whether  the  speech  be  accurately  reported  or  not,  it  is  certain  that  vs. 
22,  which  describes  the  mission  of  the  apostles,  cannot  have  originated  with 
Luke,  for  he  had  an  entirely  different  conception  of  an  apostle's  work. 


PBIMITIVE  JEWISH   CHRISTIANITY  45 

significance,  nor  such  a  postponement  of  the  return  of 
Jesus  as  should  make  it  impossible  to  preserve  the  num- 
ber unbroken  until  the  consummation. 

It  is  not  easy  to  discover  just  what  significance  attached 
to  the  apostles  in  these  early  days.  They  apparently  held 
no  official  position  in  the  church  of  Jerusalem,  and  were  not 
regarded  as  in  any  way  entrusted  with  its  government  or 
empowered  to  exercise  authority  within  it.  It  was  not  as 
an  office-bearer  that  Matthias  was  appointed,  but  as  a  wit- 
ness to  the  resurrection.1  And  it  was  not  the  Twelve  that 
were  actually  at  the  head  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem  and 
the  leaders  in  its  affairs,  but  certain  individuals,  Peter 
alone,  or  Peter  and  John  in  the  earlier  years,  and  at  a 
later  date  James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord. 

It  is  significant  that  the  name  "apostles,"  by  which  the 
Twelve  are  known  in  the  Book  of  Acts,  was  early  given 
to  many  others,  who  devoted  themselves  to  the  work  of 
travelling  missionaries,  and  who,  so  far  as  we  are  able  to 
learn,  held  no  official  position  in  any  church  or  churches. 
The  work  which  they  did  seems  to  have  been  carried  on 
after  the  pattern  given  by  Jesus  in  his  original  commis- 
sion to  the  Twelve.2  This  fact  throws  light  upon  the  tra- 
ditional conception  of  an  apostle's  vocation,  and  thus  argues 
against  the  absorption  of  the  Twelve  in  work  of  a  differ- 
ent character.  Indeed,  the  author  of  the  Acts  himself, 
though  he  holds  another  idea  of  their  mission,  gives  hints 
that  they  were  primarily  missionaries,  when  he  records 
that  Jesus,  after  his  resurrection,  commanded  them  to 
wait  in  Jerusalem,  not  permanently,  but  only  until  they 
should  be  endued  with  power  from  on  high  (that  is,  accord- 
ing to  Luke's  own  view  of  the  matter,  only  until  the  day  of 
Pentecost),  in  order  that  they  might  become  witnesses  "  in 
Jerusalem,  and  in  all  Judea  and  in  Samaria  and  unto  the 
uttermost  parts  of  the  earth."3 

But  not  simply  did  the  apostles  hold  no  official  position 
in  the  church  of  Jerusalem ;  there  exists  no  proof  that  they 

1  Acts  i.  22. 

2  See  for  instance  The  Teaching  of  the  Apostles,  chap.  xi. 

3  Acts  i.  4,  8. 


46  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

held  any  official  position  in  the  church  at  large,  or  that 
they  were  supposed  in  these  early  days  to  have  been  en- 
trusted with  any  kind  of  authority  over  it.  They  seem,  as 
missionaries,  to  have  done  the  same  work  that  was  done  by 
many  of  their  brethren.  Matthias  Avas  not  the  only  one  that 
could  testify  of  the  resurrection,  and  his  appointment  did 
not  imply  that  the  others,  who  were  more  than  five  hun- 
dred in  number  according  to  Paul,  were  relieved  from 
the  duty  or  deprived  of  the  privilege  of  bearing  their  tes- 
timony. The  significance  of  the  Twelve  lay  not  in  the 
peculiarity  of  the  work  that  they  did,  nor  in  the  authority 
with  which  they  were  entrusted, 1  but  in  the  fact  that  they 
had  been  chosen  by  Christ  to  be  his  constant  companions, 
had  enjoyed  the  privilege  of  intimate  fellowship  with 
him,  had  received  his  especial  instruction,  had  been  sent 
out  even  during  his  lifetime  to  do  the  work  of  missionaries, 
and  had  been  individually  and  collectively  commanded  to 
carry  on  that  work  after  his  death.  Thus  they  were  felt 
to  have  been  particularly  honored  by  Jesus,  and  to  have 
been  charged  by  him  with  a  heavier  responsibility  than 
the  mass  of  the  disciples.  But  this  is  far  from  involving 
the  claim  or  the  recognition  of  official  position  and  author- 
ity. It  was,  therefore,  not  as  a  member  of  an  official 
board  of  government  or  control  that  Matthias  was  chosen, 
but  simply  as  one  of  the  little  band  of  missionaries,  whose 
significance  over  and  above  other  missionaries,  whatever 
it  may  have  been  while  there  were  among  them  only 
those  directly  called  by  Jesus  himself,  after  the  appoint- 
ment of  Matthias  could  hardly  be  more  than  symbolic  or 
prophetic. 

But  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Acts  had  another  concep- 
tion of  the  significance  of  the  Twelve  Apostles.  He 
apparently  thought  of  them  as  constituting  an  apostolic 
college,  which  had  in  its  hands  from  the  beginning  the 
government  of  the  church,  and  the  members  of  which 
remained  in  Jerusalem,  and  at  the  head  not  simply  of 
the  congregation  there,  but  also  of  the  church  at  large, 

1  It  cannot  be  shown  even  that  they  were  in  control  of  the  missionary  work 
of  others. 


PRIMITIVE  JEWISH  CHRISTIANITY  47 

for  a  number  of  years.1  But  such  a  conception  is  out  of 
accord  with  the  facts  as  they  appear  even  in  the  Book  of 
Acts  itself,2  and  cannot  be  made  to  square  with  what  we 
know  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem  from  the  epistles  of 
Paul.  The  notion  is  evidently  purely  dogmatic,  resting 
upon  the  author's  assumption  of  what  the  apostles  must 
have  been  to  the  church  in  its  early  days.3  Already 
before  the  end  of  the  first  century,  the  idea  was 
prevalent  of  an  apostolic  college  to  which  was  com- 
mitted the  control  of  the  church  by  Christ.  It  was 
natural  therefore  for  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Acts, 
in  the  absence  of  specific  information  upon  the  subject, 
to  conceive  of  the  position  and  work  of  the  Twelve  Apos- 
tles during  the  early  years  in  Jerusalem  in  the  way  that 
he  did. 

Historically,  the  most  important  fact  connected  with 
the  appointment  of  Matthias  was  the  position  of  leader- 
ship assumed  by  Simon  Peter.  That  a  man  who  but  a 
few  weeks  before  had  repeatedly  and  flagrantly  denied  his 
Master,  should  so  soon  recover  the  confidence  of  his  asso- 
ciates, and  even  appear  as  their  leader  and  spokesman,  is, 
to  say  the  least,  surprising,  and  might  well  be  doubted, 
were  it  not  confirmed  by  the  undisputed  pre-eminence 
accorded  him  on  many  other  occasions  throughout  these 
early  days.  Nothing,  in  fact,  is  more  certain  than  that 
he  was  for  some  years  the  leading  figure  in  the  church  of 
Jerusalem.  But  his  pre-eminence,  following  so  close  upon 
his  cowardly  denial,  demands  an  explanation.  It  is  not 
enough  to  point  to  the  fact  that  even  during  Jesus'  life- 
time he  was  the  leading  spirit  among  the  disciples,  and 
was  recognized  as  such  by  Christ  himself,  for  whatever 
repute  he  enjoyed  then  must  have  been  forfeited  by  his 
recent  conduct.  We  can  explain  the  restored  confidence 

iCf.  Acts  vi.  1,  viii.  1,  14,  xi.  1. 

2  Though  referring  so  frequently  in  a  vague  and  general  way  to  "The 
Apostles,"  the  author  makes  it  evident  in  many  passages  that  it  was  some 
individual  or  individuals  that  were  held  in  highest  honor,  and  not  the  apostles 
as  a  body. 

3  This  idea  was  due  in  part  to  Paul  himself,  who  in  his  controversy  with 
the  Judaizers  enhanced, by  his  emphasis  upon  his  equality  with  the  Twelve, 
not  only  his  own  dignity  and  authority,  but  theirs  as  well.    See  below,  p.  647. 


48  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGEl 

of  his  brethren  only  on  the  supposition  that  he  had  had, 
since  his  denial,  an  opportunity  to  redeem  his  character 
and  to.  vindicate  conclusively  his  loyalty  to  the  Master 
and  his  cause.  What  that  opportunity  was,  we  cannot 
certainly  say,  but  we  may  find  a  suggestion  of  it  in  the 
fact  that  in  speaking  of  the  appearances  of  the  risen  Jesus, 
Paul  mentions  his  appearance  to  Peter  first  of  all.  It 
would  seem  from  Paul's  words  that  that  manifestation 
was  of  especial  significance,  and  it  is  possible  that  it  was 
primarily  to  Peter  that  the  church  owed  its  belief  in  the 
resurrection  of  its  crucified  Master.  It  may  have  been  he 
who  was  first  convinced  of  the  great  fact,  and  when  doubt 
as  to  the  reality  of  the  resurrection  threatened  to  triumph, 
or  when  the  disciples'  despair  had  not  yet  been  broken  by 
any  ray  of  hope,  he  may  have  come  to  the  rescue  with  a 
sturdy  declaration  of  faith  such  as  was  characteristic  of 
him,  and  such  as  had  won  for  him  at  an  earlier  time  the 
blessing  of  Christ.1  If  this  supposition  be  correct,  Peter 
became  in  a  sense  the  second  founder  of  the  Christian 
church,  and  the  prophecy  of  Christ,  that  upon  him  he 
would  build  his  church,2  found  literal  fulfilment;  for 
without  his  faith,  and  his  bold  avowal  of  it  at  this  critical 
time,  the  disciples  would  have  gone  back  to  their  old  life 
in  despair,  and  the  church  would  have  had  no  existence. 
Under  his  leadership,  it  would  seem,  with  the  confidence 
inspired,  in  the  first  instance,  by  his  sturdy  faith,  and 
confirmed  by  their  own  visions  of  the  risen  Lord,  the  dis- 
ciples returned  to  Jerusalem.  Under  his  leadership  they 
met  together  there,  and  it  was  he  that  proposed  the  ap- 
pointment of  Judas'  successor. 

2.  PENTECOST  AND  THE  EARLIEST  EVANGELISM 

The  day  of  Pentecost,  immediately  succeeding  the  death 
and  resurrection  of  Jesus,  has  always  been  regarded  as  of 
epochal  significance  for  the  history  of  the  Christian 
church.  Luke  himself  evidently  so  considered  it;  for 
even  in  his  Gospel  the  event  casts  its  shadow  before,  and 

i  Matt.  xvi.  16.  a  Matt.  xvi.  18. 


PRIMITIVE   JEWISH   CHRISTIANITY  49 

the  first  chapter  of  the  Book  of  Acts  is  clearly  intended 
to  lead  up  to  it.  That  it  was  an  important  day  in  the 
history  of  the  church  there  can  be  no  doubt,  but  its  impor- 
tance is  not  that  which  is  ordinarily  ascribed  to  it.  It 
was  not  the  birthday  of  the  Christian  church,  as  it  is  so 
commonly  called,  for  the  Christian  church  was  in  exis- 
tence before  Pentecost;  nor  was  it  the  day  upon  which 
began  the  dispensation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  for  his  prom- 
ised coming  preceded,  or  at  least  was  closely  connected 
with,  Jesus'  own  return  to  his  disciples  after  his  resur- 
rection, so  that  it  was  through  the  Spirit's  enlightening 
influence  that  they  became  convinced  that  he  still  lived 
and  was  still  with  them.  Certainly,  if  the  revealing 
agency  of  the  Spirit  was  ever  needed  by  the  disciples 
of  Jesus,  it  was  needed  in  the  days  succeeding  his  death ; 
and  if  the  Spirit  ever  did  act  as  the  revealer  of  truth 
to  those  disciples,  and  as  the  interpreter  of  the  Master's 
promises  to  them,  it  was  at  the  time  when  they  became 
assured  of  his  resurrection  from  the  dead.  As  Jesus 
declared  on  an  earlier  occasion  that  it  was  not  flesh  and 
blood,  but  his  Father  in  heaven  that  had  revealed  his 
Messiahship  to  Peter,  it  could  not  have  been  mere  flesh 
and  blood  that  had  convinced  Peter  of  the  resurrection  of 
the  Lord.  That  conviction  must  have  been  the  work  of 
God.  But  in  the  thought  of  Jesus  there  was  no  distinc- 
tion in  such  a  case  between  God's  work  and  the  Spirit's. 
It  must  be  assumed,  in  the  light  of  this  and  other  facts, 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  promised  by  Jesus  before  his  death, 
had  already  been  received  by  his  disciples ;  that  they  were 
under  the  influence  of  that  Spirit  when  they  recognized 
the  risen  Lord,  when  they  returned  to  Jerusalem  to  take 
up  his  work,  when  they  met  together  there  for  prayer  and 
conference,  and  when  they  filled  Judas'  vacant  place,  just 
as  truly  as  they  ever  were. 

What,  then,  is  the  historic  significance  of  Pentecost,  if 
it  was  neither  the  birthday  of  the  Christian  church  nor  the 
beginning  of  the  dispensation  of  the  Spirit?  Its  signifi- 
cance is  indicated  at  the  close  of  Luke's  Gospel,  and  in 
the  eighth  verse  of  the  first  chapter  of  Acts,  where  a  bap- 


50  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

tism  of  power  is  foretold.  Pentecost  was  a  day  of  power, 
a  day  on  which  the  Spirit  of  God  manifested  himself 
through  the  disciples  as  a  power  for  the  conversion  of 
others.  It  was  the  inauguration  of  the  evangelistic 
activity  of  the  Christian  church,  when  the  disciples  began 
the  work  to  which  they  believed  themselves  called  by  the 
risen  Lord,  the  work  of  witness-bearing.  Under  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Holy  Spirit  they  bore  testimony  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost  to  their  Master,  and  they  bore  it  with  power ; 
and  it  was  not  the  coming  of  the  Spirit,  but  the  testimony 
of  the  disciples,  that  constituted  the  great  central  fact  of 
the  day,  the  fact  that  makes  the  day  historic. 

But  in  accordance  with  his  general  conception,  the 
author  of  the  Book  of  Acts  finds  the  chief  significance  of 
Pentecost  in  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  whom  he 
regards  as  not  given  until  then;  and  that  descent  he 
represents  as  accompanied  by  certain  marvellous  phe- 
nomena, • —  a  sound  as  of  the  rushing  of  a  mighty  wind, 
tongues  parting  asunder  like  as  of  fire,  and  sitting  upon 
each  one  of  the  disciples,  and  the  speaking  by  all  of  them 
with  other  tongues  as  the  Spirit  gave  them  utterance. 
These  phenomena  are  conceived  by  the  author,  not  as 
separate  and  disconnected  events,  but  as  manifestations 
of  the  one  Spirit.  Their  significance  lies  in  the  fact  that 
they  reveal  that  Spirit's  presence.  With  the  sound  as  of 
wind,  and  with  the  tongues  as  of  fire,  we  need  not  par- 
ticularly concern  ourselves,  but  the  "  speaking  with  other 
tongues "  demands  brief  attention.  From  various  pas- 
sages in  the  New  Testament  we  learn  that  a  peculiar 
gift,  known  as  the  "gift  of  tongues,"  was  very  widely 
exercised  in  the  apostolic  church,  and  the  fourteenth 
chapter  of  Paul's  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  makes 
the  general  nature  of  the  gift  sufficiently  plain.  It  was 
evidently  the  frenzied  or  ecstatic  utterance  of  sounds 
ordinarily  unintelligible  both  to  speakers  and  to  hearers, 
except  such  as  might  be  endowed  by  the  Holy  Spirit  with 
a  special  gift  of  interpretation.1  The  speaker  was  sup- 
posed to  be  completely  under  the  control  of  the  Spirit,  to 

1 1  Cor.  xii.  10. 


PRIMITIVE  JEWISH   CHRISTIANITY  51 

be  a  mere  passive  instrument  in  his  hands,  and  to  be 
moved  and  played  upon  by  him.  His  utterances  were 
not  his  own,  but  the  utterances  of  the  Spirit,  and  he  was 
commonly  entirely  unconscious  of  what  he  was  saying. 
He  was  not  endowed  with  the  power  to  speak  in  foreign 
tongues;  his  words  were  divine,  not  human,  words,  and 
had  no  relation  whatever  to  any  intelligible  human  lan- 
guage. It  was  not  unnatural,  therefore,  that  the  speaker 
should  appear  demented  to  an  unbelieving  auditor,  as 
Paul  implies  was  not  infrequently  the  case.1  But  his 
ecstatic  utterances,  inspired  as  it  was  believed  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  were  regarded  by  his  fellow-Christians  as 
spiritual  utterances  in  an  eminent  sense.  The  "speaking 
with  tongues  "  constituted,  in  the  opinion  of  a  large  part 
of  the  church,  the  supreme  act  of  worship,  the  act  which 
gave  the  clearest  evidence  of  the  presence  of  the  Spirit 
and  of  the  speaker's  peculiar  nearness  to  his  God.2  No 
other  gift  enjoyed  by  the  early  church  so  vividly  reveals 
the  inspired  and  enthusiastic  character  of  primitive  Chris- 
tianity. It  was  apparently  this  "gift  of  tongues"  with 
which  the  disciples  were  endowed  at  Pentecost,  and  they 
spoke,  therefore,  not  in  foreign  languages,  but  in  the 
ecstatic,  frenzied,  unintelligible,  spiritual  speech  of  which 
Paul  tells  us  in  his  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians. 

That  the  Pentecostal  phenomenon  is  thus  to  be  regarded 
not  as  something  unique,  but  as  the  earliest  known  exer- 
cise of  the  common  gift  of  tongues,  is  rendered  very  prob- 
able by  the  lack  of  all  reference  to  it  in  other  early  sources ; 
by  the  absence  of  any  hint  that  the  disciples  ever  made  use 
in  their  missionary  labors,  or  indeed  on  any  other  occasion 
than  Pentecost  itself,  of  the  miraculous  power  to  speak  in 
foreign  languages ;  by  the  effect  produced  by  the  phenome- 
non upon  some  of  those  present,  who  accused  the  speakers 
of  intoxication,  and  by  the  fact  that  it  is  treated  as  a  ful- 
filment of  the  prophecy  of  Joel,  who  says  nothing  of  "  other 
tongues,"  but  characterizes  the  Messianic  Age  as  an  age  of 
revelation  and  of  prophecy.  But  the  most  decisive  argu- 

1 1  Cor.  xiv.  23. 

2  Paul  himself  had  the  gift  pre-eminently,  as  he  says  in  1  Cor.  xiv.  18. 


52  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

ment  is  to  be  found  in  Peter's  discourse,  which  constitutes 
our  most  trustworthy  source  for  a  knowledge  of  what  act- 
ually occurred.  Nowhere  in  that  discourse  does  he  refer 
to  the  use  of  foreign  languages  by  his  fellow-disciples,  not 
even  when  he  undertakes  to  defend  them  against  the  charge 
of  drunkenness,  though  it  would  certainly  have  constituted 
a  most  convincing  refutation  of  such  a  charge.1 

The  disciples  then,  it  would  seem,  were  endowed  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost  with  the  gift  of  tongues,  just  as  on  many 

1  It 'is  clear  that  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Acts  had  another  conception  of 
the  phenomenon  in  question  than  that  presented  in  the  text.  He  evidently 
supposed  that  the  disciples  used  foreign  tongues,  for  he  took  pains  to  empha- 
size the  fact  that  those  present  heard  them  speaking  in  the  languages  severally 
native  to  the  auditors.  It  has  been  claimed  that  the  author's  representation 
is  due  to  a  misunderstanding  on  his  part  of  the  common  phenomenon  of  the 
glossolalia,  arising  from  the  fact  that  he  had  himself  never  witnessed  it,  and 
an  argument  is  drawn  therefrom  for  the  late  date  of  the  Book  of  Acts.  But 
it  is  to  be  noticed  that  in  two  other  passages  (Acts  x.  46,  xix.  6)  the  author 
mentions  the  glossolalia  in  the  correct  Pauline  way,  without  any  hint  of  a 
misunderstanding  of  it,  and  some  other  reason  must  therefore  be  given  for 
his  misinterpretation  of  the  Pentecostal  phenomenon.  That  reason  is  perhaps 
to  be  found  in  the  glamour  which  surrounded  the  infant  church  in  the  eyes  of 
its  historian,  who  was  himself  far  removed  from  the  events  which  he  records. 
Under  the  circumstances  he  could  hardly  avoid  investing  even  familiar  occur- 
rences with  marvel  and  mystery.  It  may  well  be  that  the  attendant  wonders 
which  he  doubtless  found  recorded  in  the  sources  upon  which  he  based  his 
account,  —  the  sound  as  of  wind  and  the  tongues  like  as  of  fire,  —  led  him  to 
think  of  the  speaking  with  tongues,  which  was  associated  with  them  in  his 
sources,  as  only  another  and  similar  supernatural  manifestation  of  the  inau- 
guration of  the  dispensation  of  the  Spirit;  and  hence  to  picture  it  also  as 
entirely  unique  in  its  nature,  and  to  separate  it  from  the  common  everyday 
phenomenon  with  which  the  church  of  his  time  was  familiar.  At  any  rate 
whatever  the  cause  of  his  misunderstanding,  it  is  certain  that  his  conception 
of  the  phenomenon  is  borne  out  neither  by  Peter's  speech  nor  by  his  own 
account  of  the  farther  events  of  the  day.  It  was  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Schaff 
(History  of  the  Christian  Church,  Vol.  I.  p.  231)  that  while  the  Pentecostal 
"speaking  with  tongues"  was  in  reality  the  ordinary  glossolalia,  and  there- 
fore did  not  involve  the  use  of  foreign  languages,  the  Holy  Spirit  interpreted 
the  ecstatic  utterances  to  some  of  those  present,  so  that  each  supposed  that  he 
heard  the  disciples  speaking  in  his  own  tongue.  Compare  also  Overbeck  in 
De  Wette's  Kurzgefasstes  Handbuch  zinn  Neuen  Testament,  4te  Auflage, 
S.  23  sq.;  and  Wendt  in  Meyer's  Apostelgeschichte,  7te  Auflage,  S.  59  sq.  This 
makes  the  whole  scene  clearer  than  the  ordinary  view,  and  better  explains 
the  accusation  of  drunkenness  brought  against  the  speaker  by  some  of  the 
onlookers;  but  it  fails  entirely  to  account  for  the  silence  of  Peter  in  his  dis- 
course, and  is  no  more  nearly  in  accord  with  the  conception  of  the  author 
himself  than  is  the  view  presented  in  the  text,  for  the  author  evidently  under- 
stood that  the  disciples  actually  spoke  in  foreign  languages  and  were  not 
merely  supposed  to  have  done  so  by  certain  of  the  hearers.  For  an  elaborate 
discussion  of  the  whole  subject  and  a  statement  of  the  various  views  upon  itf 
see  Wendt,  Lc. 


PRIMITIVE  JEWISH   CHRISTIANITY  53 

other  occasions  when  the  Holy  Spirit  made  his  presence 
felt,  arid  under  the  influence  of  that  Spirit  they  gave 
utterance  in  ecstatic  phrase  to  the  pro  roundest  spiritual 
joy  and  gratitude  to  God.  Their  speaking  with  tongues 
thus  constituted  the  earliest  testimony  borne  by  Christ's 
disciples  after  his  resurrection  in  the  presence  ot  unbe- 
lievers. It  did  not  consist  in  the  explicit  and  intelligible 
announcement  of  Jesus'  Messiahship,  but  it  was  testimony 
nevertheless.  For  the  impressive  thing  about  the  phe- 
nomenon was  that  men  whose  leader  had  been  crucified 
but  a  few  weeks  before,  and  who  had  fled  and  scattered 
in  fear  and  despair,  were  now  gathered  together  again  in 
the  very  city  where  he  had  been  condemned,  and  under 
the  very  eyes  of  the  authorities  that  had  condemned  him, 
and  were  giving  evident  and  most  demonstrative  expres- 
sion to  the  liveliest  joy  and  gratitude.  The  amazing  fact 
demanded  an  explanation,  and  that  explanation  Peter  gave 
in  his  discourse.  He  interpreted  the  unintelligible  utter- 
ances of  those  who  had  spoken  with  tongues,  and  in  the 
light  of  his  words  the  strange  phenomenon  took  on  new 
meaning  and  became  the  most  powerful  kind  of  testimony 
to  the  resurrection  and  exaltation  of  Jesus,  for  it  was  the 
testimony  of  the  common  conviction  of  a  multitude  of  men. 
It  was  not  Peter  alone,  then,  that  bore  witness  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost ;  witness  was  borne  also  by  all  the  assembled 
disciples,  and  Peter  acted  simply  as  the  interpreter  of 
that  testimony  to  those  who  did  not  understand  it.1 

The  Pentecostal  address  of  Peter  is  peculiarly  interest- 
ing because  it  constitutes  the  earliest  extant  Christian 
apology.  It  is,  moreover,  a  thoroughly  representative 
discourse.  It  reproduces  not  the  thought  of  Peter  alone, 
but  the  thought  of  his  fellow-Christians  as  well.  The 
spirit  of  primitive  Jewish  Christianity  in  general  speaks 
in  it.  The  first  and  most  imperative  duty  of  these  early 
disciples  must  be  to  prove  to  their  countrymen  that  Jesus 
was  the  promised  Messiah.  His  crucifixion  had  seemingly 

1  On  the  views  of  the  early  disciples  of  Jerusalem  see,  in  addition  to  the 
general  works  on  New  Testament  theology  and  on  the  history  of  the  apos' 
tolic  age,  Briggs :  Messiah  of  the  Apostles,  p.  21  sq, 


54  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

given  the  lie  to  his  claim  and  proved  him  an  impostor. 
To  go  on  preaching  his  Gospel  was  therefore  absurd, 
unless  the  impression  left  by  his  death  could  be  effaced. 
Unless  he  could  be  shown  to  be  what  he  had  claimed  to 
be,  unless  it  could  be  shown  that  his  death  did  not  mean 
what  it  seemed  to  mean,  the  attempt  to  carry  on  the  work 
that  he  had  begun  might  as  well  be  given  up  at  once. 
Apologetics  was  the  imperative  need  of  the  hour;  not 
simply  the  proclamation  of  the  Gospel,  but  the  defence  of 
it,  and  the  defence  of  Jesus  himself,  the  preacher  of  it. 
Thus  the  emphasis  was  changed  from  the  Gospel  itself  to 
the  evidence  for  its  truth;  from  the  message  to  the  mes- 
senger. Not  the  fatherhood  of  God,  but  the  Messiahship 
of  Jesus  formed  the  burden  of  the  preaching  of  the  apostles, 
and  so  the  Master's  estimate  of  values  was  reversed. 

But  it  is  significant  that  the  disciples  contented  them- 
selves with  the  demonstration  of  the  proposition  that 
Jesus  is  the  Messiah,  and  that  it  apparently  did  not 
occur  to  them  to  ask  what  his  Messiahship  involved  for 
Jesus  himself.  It  was  enough  to  know  that  he  was  the 
Christ.  So  long  as  that  fact  was  true  his  character  and 
nature  were  a  matter  of  comparative  indifference.  There 
is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  disciples  in  the  beginning 
had  any  other  idea  of  the  Messiah  than  that  which  pre- 
vailed among  their  countrymen  in  general,1  and  there  is 
no  sign  that  they  thought  of  asking  whether  that  idea 
was  correct  or  incorrect.  Only  after  some  time  had  passed 
did  Christian  thinkers  begin  to  fill  in  the  conception  of 
Messiahship  with  this  and  that  content ;  only  when  the 
original  Messianic  interest  had  somewhat  waned,  and  it 
was  believed  that  Jesus  must  have  had  something  else  to 
do  besides  founding  the  Messianic  kingdom.  It  was,  in 
other  words,  the  conception  that  his  work  was  more  than 
merely  Messianic  that  first  opened  the  question  as  to  the 
constitution  of  his  person.2 

1  The  Messiah  was  commonly  thought  of  among  the  Jews  as  a  man  called 
and  chosen  by  God.     See  above,  p.  8. 

2  The  common  designation  given  to  Jesus  both  by  Peter  and  by  his  fellow- 
Christians  is  6  irals  TOV  6eov,  "  the  servant  of  God  "  (Acts  iii.  13,  26,  iv.  27,  30). 
6  vibs  TOV  6eov  does  not  occur  in  these  early  documents  (another  sign  of  their 


PRIMITIVE   JEWISH   CHRISTIANITY  55 

The  supreme  argument  urged  by  the  disciples  in  sup- 
port of  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus  was  his  resurrection. 
No  event  was  better  calculated  to  convince  unbelievers 
that  he  was  what  he  claimed  to  be ;  to  efface  the  impres- 
sion made  by  his  death  and  to  show  that  it  had  not  meant, 
as  it  seemed  to  mean,  that  he  was  a  blasphemous  impostor, 
suffering  the  just  vengeance  of  God.  But  it  was  hardly 
to  be  expected  that  those  who  had  not  themselves  seen  the 
risen  Jesus  should  believe  the  testimony  of  his  followers 
to  such  a  startling  and  unheard-of  event,  for  which  even 
those  followers  themselves,  in  spite  of  their  intimate  fel- 
lowship with  him  and  their  belief  in  his  Messiahship,  were 
entirely  unprepared.  It  was  natural,  therefore,  that  the 
effort  should  be  made  first  of  all  to  render  the  event  cred- 
ible by  showing  that,  though  it  formed  no  part  of  the 
common  Messianic  expectation,  it  had  yet  been  distinctly 
foretold  in  the  Scriptures.  To  a  Jew  no  other  explanation 
was  necessaiy.  His  teleological  conceptions  were  such 
that  the  fact  that  anything  had  been  prophesied  con- 
stituted a  sufficient  reason  for  it.  And  so  Peter  in 
his  Pentecostal  address  appealed  to  a  passage  from  the 
sixteenth  Psalm,  which  he  claimed  foretold  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  Messiah,  and  thus  at  once  rendered  Jesus' 
resurrection  credible,  and  made  it  a  convincing  proof 
that  he  was  actually  the  Christ.  But  Peter  did  not  con- 
tent himself  with  finding  the  resurrection  in  the  Script- 
ures; he  employed  prophecy  also  to  prove  that  it  was 
necessary  for  the  Messiah  to  ascend  into  the  heavens  and 
to  sit  down  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  and  this  he  claimed 
that  Jesus  had  done,  as  was  evidenced  by  the  outpouring 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  was  due  to  him.  Thus  his  exal- 
tation became  a  farther  proof  of  his  Messiahship.  In  the 


primitive  character).  The  loftier  titles  that  are  ascribed  to  Jesus,  — Lord, 
Saviour,  Prince,  Cornerstone,  — attach  to  him  in  his  exalted  post-resurrection 
existence  only,  and  characterize  simply  his  calling  and  mission  as  Messiah. 
They  say  nothing  as  to  his  natural  constitution.  He  is  not  represented  as 
a  pre-existent,  heavenly  being,  but  simply  as  a  man  approved  of  God  and 
chosen  by  him  to  be  the  Messiah  and  then  raised  by  him  to  the  position  of 
Lord.  Of  the  Pauline  conception  that  he  had  returned  to  the  glory  which  was 
originally  his,  we  have  no  hint  in  these  early  records. 


56  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

same  way  a  prediction  of  Joel  was  used  to  establish  the  dis- 
ciples' contention,  involved  in  their  proclamation  of  Jesus 
as  the  Messiah,  and  in  turn  supporting  his  Messiahship, 
that  the  last  days,  the  days  immediately  preceding  the  con- 
summation, were  already  come.  It  was  thus  claimed  by 
Peter,  and  in  making  the  claim  he  simply  represented  the 
common  sentiment  of  the  church,  that  the  occurrences  to 
which  the  disciples  and  the  Pentecostal  phenomena  bore 
testimony  were  not  unheralded  and  mysterious  events,  but 
a  distinct  fulfilment  of  Messianic  prophecy,  and  as  such 
demanded  from  all  true  Jews  devout  recognition  and  belief.1 
In  the  light  of  all  he  had  to  urge,  Peter  might  well  think 
himself  justified  in  exclaiming  triumphantly  at  the  close 
of  his  speech:  "Let  all  the  house  of  Israel,  therefore, 
know  assuredly  that  God  hath  made  this  Jesus,  whom  ye 
crucified,  both  Lord  and  Christ."2 

But  in  spite  of  all  the  evidence  that  could  be  adduced 
for  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus  from  his  resurrection  and 
exaltation  and  from  the  Scriptures  which  foretold  those 
events,  his  death  must  remain  a  stumbling-block,  and 
must  seem  to  many  a  fatal  objection  to  the  identification 
of  the  man  Jesus  with  God's  chosen  Messiah.  Not  that 
the  conception  of  a  suffering  Messiah  was  absolutely  un- 
known, but  such  a  conception  was  certainly  not  common 
and  nowhere  included  his  official  rejection  and  disgraceful 


1  It  is  entirely  gratuitous  to  find  in  the  use  of  Old  Testament  prophecy  in 
Peter's  pentecostal  discourse  evidence  of  a  later  hand.  It  is  inconceivable 
that  he  could  have  made  any  address  at  all  upon  the  occasion  in  question 
without  appealing  to  Scripture;  and  the  fact  that  he  attempts  to  prove  no 
more  than  he  does  is  an  argument  for  the  genuineness  of  the  discourse  or  for 
the  primitive  character  of  the  document  from  which  Luke  got  it.  Paul's 
words  in  1  Cor.  xv.  3-4  are  very  significant  in  this  connection  :  "  For  I  deliv- 
ered unto  you,"  he  says, "  first  of  all  that  which  I  also  received,  how  that  Christ 
died  for  our  sins  according  to  the  Scriptures,  and  that  he  was  buried ;  and 
that  he  hath  been  raised  on  the  third  day  according  to  the  Scriptures."  The 
Scriptures  are  here  made  to  prove  much  more  than  they  are  by  Peter.  Indeed, 
as  time  passed,  the  practice  of  appealing  to  them  grew  increasingly  common, 
and  the  area  of  observed  coincidence  between  the  life  and  work  of  Jesus  and 
Scripture  prophecy  grew  constantly  larger.  Our  gospels,  especially  the  Gos- 
pel of  Matthew,  written  as  they  were  more  than  a  generation  after  the  events 
which  they  describe,  are  witnesses  to  the  extent  to  which  the  practice  had 
been  carried  by  that  time. 

«  Acts  ii.  36. 


PRIMITIVE  JEWISH    CHRISTIAKITY  57 

execution  by  a  mode  of  death  pronounced  accursed  in  the 
law.1  It  was  in  view  of  this  difficulty  that  the  disciples 
were  led  again  to  look  for  light  in  the  Scriptures.  If  it 
could  be  shown  that  it  was  there  foretold  that  the  Christ 
should  suffer  and  be  rejected  by  God's  chosen  people, 
and  undergo  a  disgraceful  death,  the  difficulty  would 
be  at  once  removed,  and  at  the  same  time  added  proof 
would  be  secured  for  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus,  who  had 
in  this  particular  also  fulfilled  Messianic  prophecy.  In 
Peter's  Pentecostal  discourse  nothing  is  said  upon  this 
subject,  though  the  quotation  from  the  sixteenth  Psalm, 
which  is  used  as  a  prophecy  of  Jesus'  resurrection,  of  course 
involves  also  his  death.  But  in  the  address  recorded  in 
Acts  iii.  12  sq.,  we  read:  "But  the  things  which  God 
foreshewed  by  the  mouth  of  all  the  prophets,  that  his 
Christ  should  suffer,  he  thus  fulfilled;"  and  the  same 
idea  appears  in  other  passages  in  the  early  chapters  of 
Acts.2  With  this  explanation  of  the  death  of  Jesus,  the 
disciples  seem  for  some  time  to  have  contented  them- 
selves. At  least  we  find  no  other  reason  for  it  referred  to 
in  any  of  the  recorded  speeches  or  prayers  of  Peter  or  of 
his  associates.  There  is  no  sign  that  they  thought  of  it 
as  Christ  did,  as  possessing  an  independent  value  of  its 
own,  or  as  contributing  in  any  way  to  the  well-being  of 
his  followers,  or  to  the  advancement  of  the  kingdom.3 


1  Cf.  Justin  Martyr's  Dialogue  with  Trypho,  c.  89  and  90;  and  see  Schiirer, 
I.e.,  II.  p.  464  sq.  (Eng.  Trans.,  Div.  II.  Vol.  II.  p.  104). 

2  Acts  viii.  32  sq.    Compare  also  iv.  11,  28. 

3  The  words  of  Paul  in  1  Cor.  xv.  3 :  "  I  delivered  unto  you  first  of  all  that 
which  also  I  received  "  (irapfrapov)  seem  to  imply  that  the  idea  that  Christ's 
death  had  some  relation  to  men's  release  from  sin,  was  not  original  with  him- 
self, but  was  gained  from  those  who  were  Christians  before  him.    It  is  certain 
that  the  idea  was  widespread  long  before  the  end  of  the  first  century  even  in  non- 
Pauline  circles  (cf.  e.g.  Matt.  xxvi.  28,  where  the  words  ei's  Afaaiv  dfjutpriuv 
are  added),  and  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  it  arose  very  early.    Indeed, 
it  cannot  have  been  long  before  the  disciples  were  led  to  make  a  connection 
at  once  so  obvious  and  so  clearly  suggested  by  such  a  passage  as  Isa.  liii. 
But  that  the  connection  was  thought  of  in  the  early  days  with  which  we  are 
dealing,  there  is  no  sign  in  our  sources,  and  it  may  be  regarded  as  certain,  at 
any  rate,  that  it  was  not  emphasized.    It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  even  when 
it  was  generally  recognized  that  some  connection  existed,  it  was  long  before 
the  nature  of  it  was  determined.     There  was,  in  fact,  for  centuries  much 
vagueness  of  conception  and  wide  lack  of  agreement  at  this  point. 


58  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

According  to  the  author  of  the  Acts,  Peter's  Pentecostal 
discourse  produced  a  profound  impression  upon  his  audi- 
tors, and  drew  from  them  the  anxious  query:  "Brethren, 
what  shall  we  do?"  Peter's  reply,  taken  in  connection 
with  other  utterances  recorded  in  the  following  chapters, 
reveals  with  sufficient  clearness  the  conception  of  the 
Gospel  prevalent  among  the  disciples  in  these  early 
days.  That  conception  was  of  the  most  simple  and  primi- 
tive character.  Christianity,  as  they  understood  it,  was 
Judaism,  and  nothing  more.  It  was  not  a  substitute  for 
Judaism,  nor  even  an  addition  or  supplement  to  Judaism ; 
it  was  not,  indeed,  in  any  way  distinct  from  the  national 
faith.  It  was  simply  the  belief  on  the  part  of  good  and 
faithful  Jews  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  and  it  involved 
no  disloyalty  to  Judaism,  and  no  abandonment  of  existing 
principles.  For  a  Jew  to  believe  in  the  Messiah  whom 
they  preached,  was  not  necessarily  to  revise  his  concep- 
tions of  the  nature  of  the  Messianic  kingdom,  and  of  the 
blessings  to  be  enjoyed  within  it,  nor  indeed  of  the  conj 
ditions  of  sharing  in  those  blessings.  Peter  says  only, 
"Repent  and  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ."1 
Both  here  and  in  iii.  19,  where  he  again  exhorts  his  hear- 
ers to  repent,  the  sin  that  is  uppermost  in  his  mind  is 
their  crucifixion  of  Jesus.  But  in  v.  31  the  word  "re- 
pentance "  is  emplo}red  in  a  more  general  sense,  and  even 
in  the  two  passages  just  mentioned,  it  is  clear  from  Peter's 
reference  to  the  forgiveness  or  remission  of  sins,  that  he 
did  not  intend  to  confine  the  needed  repentance  to  the 
single  crime  which  they  had  committed  against  the  Mes- 
siah. It  is  clear,  in  other  words,  that  though  he  was 
stating  primarily  not  the  conditions  of  salvation  in  gen- 
eral, for  which,  indeed,  his  hearers  did  not  ask,  but  simply 
the  particular  duty  devolving  upon  them  under  existing 
circumstances,  he  was  voicing  at  the  same  time  the  gen- 
eral truth,  that  if  one  is  conscious  of  sin  committed,  lie 
must  repent  before  he  can  expect  to  enjoy  God's  promised 
blessings.  In  laying  down  such  a  condition,  Peter  was 
simply  reiterating  a  principle  universally  prevalent  among 

1  Acts  ii.  38. 


PRIMITIVE  JEWISH   CHRISTIANITY  59 

the  Jews  of  his  time,  that  righteousness  is  an  indispen- 
sable condition  of  enjoying  God's  favor,  whether  now  or 
hereafter.  It  would  be  a  mistake  to  suppose  that  he  in- 
tended, during  those  early  days,  to  enunciate  a  new  way 
of  securing  God's  favor,  or  a  new  method  of  salvation. 
He  did  not  put  repentance  in  the  place  of  righteousness, 
nor  did  he  suggest  any  revision  of  the  prevailing  theory 
of  righteousness,  making  it  consist  in  something  else  than 
the  observance  of  the  Jewish  law.  Moreover,  we  are  not 
justified  in  assuming  that  his  words  involved  in  any  sense 
a  rebuke  of  the  self-righteousness  of  his  countrymen ;  that 
he  intended  to  assert  that  every  man  is  a  sinner,  and  that 
repentance  is  a  universal  precondition  of  enjoying  God's 
favor.  Whatever  his  own  opinion  on  the  subject,  the 
words  which  he  is  reported  to  have  uttered  during  these 
early  days  leave  room  for  the  theory,  which  was  wide- 
spread, at  least  in  Pharisaic  circles,  that  it  is  possible  for 
a  man  to  keep  the  law  of  God  and  thereby  to  secure 
through  his  own  efforts  the  favor  and  blessing  of  the 
Almighty.  Peter  therefore  preached  no  new  and  un- 
familiar Gospel,  when  he  summoned  his  hearers  to  repen- 
tance. He  was  simply  enforcing  the  application,  in  the 
case  of  men  whom  he  believed  to  have  committed  a  grave 
crime,  of  a  long-established,  widely  recognized,  and  genu- 
inely Jewish  principle,  which  they  accepted  as  truly  as  he. 
The  baptism  which  Peter  connects  with  repentance,  in 
ii.  38,  was  not  essentially  novel.  Baptism  in  the  name 
of  Jesus  Christ  was,  of  course,  a  new  thing  to  the  Jews 
whom  he  addressed ;  but  baptism  as  such  was  entirely  in 
line  with  the  common  Jewish  rites  of  purification,  and  as 
a  symbolical  representation  of  cleansing  from  the  sins  or 
crimes  of  which  they  repented,  it  must  seem  the  most 
natural  thing  in  the  world  to  them,  just  as  John's  bap- 
tism seemed  quite  natural,  and  was  never  thought  of  as 
involving  any  disloyalty  to  Judaism,  or  any  departure 
from  its  traditional  principles.  The  connection  of  the 
rite  with  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  did  not  alter  its  essen- 
tial character,  nor  make  it  an  un- Jewish  thing.  It  meant 
only  that  the  repentance  to  which  it  gave  expression  was 


60  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

based  upon  and  due  to  the  recognition  of  Jesus  as  the 
Messiah;  and  it  may  well  be  that  baptism  in  his  name 
was  demanded  by  Peter  of  the  Jews  whom  he  addressed 
at  Pentecost,  just  because  the  great  crime  which  they  had 
committed  was  the  crucifixion  of  that  Messiah,  and  because 
they  could  thus  best  give  voice  to  their  repentance  for 
that  crime.  Administered  on  this  occasion  in  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ,  the  rite  would  naturally  take  that  form  on 
other  occasions,  even  when  administered  to  those  that  had 
had  no  part  in  the  crucifixion.  It  might  thus  in  time 
come  to  be  everywhere  regarded  not  merely  as  ap  expres- 
sion of  repentance,  but  also  as  an  assertion  of  $he  Mes- 
siahship  of  the  crucified  Jesus. 

We  have  no  record  in  our  Synoptic  Gospels  that  Jesus 
himself  ever  baptized  any  one,  or  that  baptism  was  prac- 
tised by  his  disciples  during  his  lifetime.  But  it  is  dis- 
tinctly stated  in  John  iv.  2,  that  though  Jesus  himself  did 
not  baptize,  his  disciples  did,  and  the  entire  naturalness 
of  the  rite,  in  the  light  of  John's  baptism,  and  its  general 
prevalence  in  the  apostolic  church,  confirm  the  report,  and 
make  it  practically  certain  that  the  rite  was  not  introduced 
as  an  innovation  after  Jesus'  death.  But  if  practised 
during  his  lifetime,  by  his  disciples,  it  is  altogether  prob- 
able, in  view  of  his  uniform  policy  touching  the  announce- 
ment of  his  Messiahship,  that  baptism  had  the  simple 
Johannine  form,  and  that  it  was  riot  a  baptism  into  or  in 
his  own  name.  The  name  of  Jesus  is  mentioned  by  Peter 
in  connection  with  the  rite  only  in  ii.  38,  in  his  reply  to 
the  questioners  at  Pentecost.1  This  might  suggest  a 
doubt  as  to  whether  the  formula  was  really  used  even  on 
that  occasion.  And  the  doubt  might  seem  to  be  confirmed 
by  the  fact  that  only  in  three  other  passages  in  the  Book  of 
Acts,  and  then  only  in  the  narrative  portions,  is  baptism 
connected  with  the  name  of  Jesus.2  It  is  not  impossible 
that,  even  after  Pentecost,  the  rite  was  sometimes  admin- 
istered in  the  Johannine  form,  but  the  common  use  of 

1  Peter  refers  to  baptism  only  in  one  other  passage  (x.  47),  and  then  does 
not  connect  it  with  the  name  of  Jesus;  though  Luke  tells  us  in  the  following 
verses  that  he  "  commanded  them  to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ.' 

2  Acts  viii.  16,  x.  48,  xix.  5.   But  compare  also  the  address  of  Paul,  Acts  xxii.  16. 


PRIMITIVE  JEWISH  CHRISTIANITY  61 

the  Christian  formula  in  the  time  of  Paul  makes  it  alto- 
gether probable  that  that  formula  was  introduced  at  a  very 
early  day ;  and  the  conditions  at  Pentecost  were  such  as 
to  make  its  introduction  at  that  time  most  natural. 

Of  the  trinitarian  formula,  into  the  name  of  the  Father, 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  later  became  univer- 
sal in  the  church,  we  have  no  trace  in  the  New  Testament, 
except  in  the  single  passage,  Matt,  xxviii.  19. 1  It  is  diffi- 
cult to  suppose  that  it  was  employed  in  the  early  days  with 
which  we  are  here  concerned ;  for  it  involves  a  conception 
of  the  nature  of  the  rite  which  was  entirely  foreign  to  the 
thought  of  these  primitive  Christians,  and  indeed  no  less 
foreign  to  the  thought  of  Paul.  When  and  how  the  formula 
arose,  we  do  not  know.  We  find  it  expressly  enjoined  in 
the  Teaching  of  the  Apostles,2  and  that  it  was  in  common 
use  in  the  middle  of  the  second  century  is  clear  from  the 
old  Roman  symbol  which  was  based  upon  it,  and  also  from 
Justin  Martyr's  Apology.8  It  may  have  had  its  origin  in 
the  prophec}'  of  the  Baptist  recorded  in  all  the  Gospels, 
that  the  Messiah  would  baptize  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
in  Jesus'  own  promise,  that  he  would  send  the  Holy  Spirit 
as  another  advocate  in  his  place,  and  that  he  and  the 

1  It  is  difficult  in  the  light  of  all  we  know  of  Jesus'  principles  and  practice, 
and  in  the  light  also  of  the  fact  that  the  early  disciples,  and  Paul  as  well, 
baptized  into  the  name  of  Christ  alone,  to  suppose  that  Jesus  himself  uttered 
the  words :  "  Baptizing  them  into  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  which  are  quoted  in  Matt,  xxviii.  19.    But  it  may  be  that 
he  directed  his  apostles  not  simply  to  make  disciples  of  all  the  nations  but 
also  to  baptize  them,  as  they  had,  perhaps,  been  in  the  habit  already  of  bap- 
tizing those  that  joined  their  company.    If,  then,  he  simply  gave  the  general 
direction  to  baptize  (cf.  the  appendix  of  Mark  xvi.  16),  it  would  be  very  natu- 
ral for  a  scribe  to  add  the  formula,  "  Into  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the 
Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  which  was  in  common  use  in  his  day.    On  the 
other  hand,  the  fact  must  be  recognized  that  Paul's  indifference  about  per- 
forming the  rite  of  baptism  (see  1  Cor.  i.  14  sq.)  is  hardly  what  we  should 
expect  if  the  eleven  apostles  received  from  Christ  a  direct  command  to  bap- 
tize; and  it  is  not  impossible  that  the  entire  passage  (Matt,  xxviii.  19  b)  is  a 
later  addition,  as  maintained  by  some  scholars  (cf.  Teichmann's  article,  Die 
Taufe  bei  Pauhis,  in  the  Zeitschrift  fur  Theologie  und  Kirche,  1896,  Heft  4, 
pp.  357  sq.).    On  Paul's  conception  of  baptism,  see  below,  p.  541. 

2  Didache,  vii.    But  baptism  into  the  name  of  the  Lord  is  also  spoken  of 
in  a  later  chapter  as  if  it  were  synonymous.    Hernias  ( Vis.  iii.  7,  3)  speaks 
only  of  baptism  into  the  name  of  the  Lord.    Other  apostolic  fathers  give  us 
no  light. 

8  Justin  Martyr,  Apol.  i.  6. 


62  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

Father  and  the  Spirit  Avould  abide  with  his  disciples. 
The  formula  of  benediction  employed  by  Paul  in  2  Cor. 
xiii.  14  may  also  have  contributed  to  its  use. 

In  stating  to  his  hearers  at  Pentecost,  and  on  other 
occasions  as  well,  the  means  by  which  they  might  make 
amends  for  the  crime  they  had  committed,  and  prepare 
themselves  for  the  approaching  kingdom,  Peter  laid  down 
no  strange  and  un- Jewish  conditions.  In  the  same  way, 
when  describing  the  blessings  that  they  might  expect  to 
enjoy  if  they  repented  and  were  baptized,  he  preached  no 
new  and  unfamiliar  Gospel.  "Repent  and  be  baptized," 
he  says,  "in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission 
of  your  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost."1  It  was  a  common  belief  among  the  Jews  that 
the  presence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  would  be  a  characteristic 
feature  of  the  Messianic  kingdom ;  that  the  spiritual  gifts, 
which  in  earlier  days  were  enjoyed  only  by  favored  indi- 
viduals here  and  there,  would  in  that  kingdom  be  bestowed 
upon  all.  Peter  was  therefore  on  familiar  ground,  when 
he  connected  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  at  Pentecost 
with  the  advent  of  the  Messianic  age.  If  his  hearers 
agreed  with  him  that  the  Pentecostal  phenomena  indicated 
the  Spirit's  presence,  they  could  not  help  agreeing  with 
him  in  the  conclusion  drawn  therefrom.  But  in  the 
prophecy  of  Joel,  which  he  quotes,  the  outpouring  of  the 
Spirit  is  made  to  precede  and  not  to  follow  the  "Day 
of  the  Lord,"  and  it  is  clear,  in  the  light  of  iii.  19  sq., 
that  Peter  thus  understood  the  prophecy,  and  that  he  re- 
garded the  Spirit's  advent  as  a  sign  not  that  the  promised 
kingdom  was  already  established  upon  earth,  but  that  its 
establishment  was  at  hand.  The  days  that  were  intro- 
duced by  Pentecost  were  only  preparatory;  the  consum- 
mation was  still  in  the  future.  The  Messianic  realm 
belonged,  in  Peter's  thought,  just  as  in  the  thought  of 
his  contemporaries,  not  to  this  aeon,  but  to  another,  and 
before  its  inauguration  must  come  the  day  of  judgment 
and  the  "end  of  the  world,"  that  is,  the  end  of  the  pres- 
ent age.  That  Jesus  was  already  Lord  and  Prince  and 

i  Acts  ii.  38. 


s 

PRIMITIVE  JEWISH   CHRISTIANITY  63 

Saviour  did  not  mean  that  his  kingdom  was  already  a 
reality,  and  that  he  was  exercising  dominion  therein,  but 
only  that  he  was  preparing  the  way  for  its  realization. 
By  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  he  was  fitting  his  follow- 
ers for  it,  and  making  its  speedy  establishment  possible. 
That  outpouring  was  a  sign  of  its  approach,  but  not  off 
its  actual  presence.  The  disciples  therefore  lived  in  the 
future  as  truly  as  their  unconverted  brethren.  The  Christ 
was  yet  to  come  to  accomplish  his  true  work.1 

That  work  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  Peter  and 
his  fellows  conceived  in  any  other  way  than  their  Jewish 
brethren.  They  evidently  thought  of  the  expected  king- 
dom as  a  national  kingdom,  for  Peter  distinctly  makes 
the  advent  of  the  Messiah  dependent  upon  the  repentance 
and  conversion  of  those  whom  he  addresses.2  Only  when 
the  Jewish  nation  has  listened  to  the  preaching  of  the 
apostles  and  has  recognized  Jesus  as  the  Christ,  can  the 
times  of  refreshing  come,  and  the  Messiah  return  to  set 
up  the  kingdom.  Into  the  details  of  that  kingdom  Peter 
does  not  enter,  but  he  implies  that  the  expected  Messianic 
judgment  will  take  place,3  and  he  conceives  the  punish- 
ment of  the  wicked  in  genuine  Jewish  form  as  a  "  destruc- 
tion from  among  the  people."4  He  speaks  also  of  the 
restoration  of  all  things,  a  common  phrase  in  Jewish  apoca- 
lyptic literature,  and  of  the  fulfilment  of  the  entire  range 
of  Messianic  prediction.5  All  the  blessings  promised  by 
the  prophets,  and  longingly  anticipated  by  the  fathers, 
he  assures  his  hearers  they  will  yet  enjoy,  if  they  repent 
and  thus  secure  forgiveness  and  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  In  the  present  is  offered  the  opportunity  not  of 
realizing  a  present  salvation,  but  of  making  certain  the 
enjoyment  of  a  future  salvation.  It  is  to  make  the  most 

1  Looking  to  the  future  as  the  disciples  were  for  the  consummation  of  the 
Kingdom,  and  for  the  complete  fulfilment  of  Messianic  prophecy,  they  must 
inevitably  feel  less  interest  in  the  life  of  Jesus  on  earth  than  in  his  future 
advent.    The  life  which  they  had  witnessed  was  only  preparatory,  not  final, 
and  had  value  chiefly  in  its  relation  to  days  to  come.    Thus  is  explained  the 
remarkable  fact  that  for  a  long  time  the  significance  of  Jesus'  earthly  life  was 
almost  entirely  overlooked. 

2  Acts  iii.  19.  4  Acts  iii.  23. 

3  Acts  ii.  20,  21,  iii.  23.  6  Acts  iii.  21. 


64  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE 

of  that  opportunity  that  Peter  exhorts  his  hearers  on  all 
possible  occasions.1 

3.   THE  LIFE  OF  THE  PRIMITIVE  DISCIPLES 

The  life  of  the  early  Christians  of  Jerusalem  was  in 
strictest  accord  with  the  conceptions  that  have  been  de- 
scribed. Their  recognition  of  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  did 
not  result  in  their  neglect  of  the  rites  and  ceremonies  of 
Judaism,  nor  make  them  any  less  zealous  than  before  for 
the  religion  of  their  fathers.  They  continued  to  discharge 
the  various  religious  duties  that  devolved  upon  them  as 
Jews,  including  participation  in  the  temple  worship  and 
in  the  offering  of  the  regular  daily  sacrifices.2  We  know 
also  from  Paul's  experience  with  the  Judaizers,  that  for 
many  years  after  the  death  of  Christ,  there  were  multi- 
tudes of  Christians  zealously  devoted  to  the  laws  and 
traditions  of  the  fathers.  Indeed,  it  may  fairly  be  sup- 

1  A  very  noticeable  feature  of  the  discourses  of  Peter,  which  he  is  reported 
to  have  given  during  these  early  years,  is  the  uniform  absence  of  a  reference 
to  faith  as  a  condition  of  enjoying  God's  favors,  and  sharing  in  the  blessings 
of  the  Messianic  age.    Only  once  during  the  period  with  which  we  are  concerned 
does  he  refer  to  faith,  and  then  he  makes  faith  in  the  name  of  Jesus  the  ground 
of  the  healing  of  the  lame  man.     Of  course,  baptism  in  the  name  of  Jesus 
involves  a  certain  kind  of  faith,  or  more  accurately  the  conviction  that  he  is 
the  Messiah,  but  faith  in  him  is  nowhere  expressly  made  a  condition  of  bap- 
tism or  of  discipleship.    In  this  respect  the  utterances  of  Peter  very  closely 
resemble  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  and  clearly  represent  an  early  type  of  Christian 
teaching.    Doubtless  the  later  emphasis  upon  the  necessity  of  faith,  which  was 
universal  even  in  circles  where  most  was  made  of  the  observance  of  law,  was 
largely  due  to  Paul.    That  emphasis  did  not  involve  a  new  conception  of  the 
Gospel,  but  only  a  clearer  apprehension  of  that  which  had  been  from  the 
beginning  implicitly  wrapped  up  in  it.    Peter  in  his  address  at  the  council  of 
Jerusalem  (Acts  xv.  9)  refers  to  faith  as  a  means  by  which  the  heart  is  cleansed, 
and  Gal.  ii.  16  implies  that  he  was  one  with  Paul  in  his  recognition  of  its 
necessity.    Indeed,  he  could  not  do  otherwise  than  agree  that  the  observance 
of  the  law  was  insufficient  unless  it  were  supplemented  by  the  belief  in  Jesus' 
Messiahship.    The  fact,  therefore,  that  in  the  early  discourses  recorded  in  Acts, 
faith  is  not  made  a  condition  of  salvation,  argues  strongly  for  the  primitive 
character  of  the  documents  containing  them,  of  which  the  author  of  the  Acts 
made  use.    To  him  and  his  contemporaries  Christianity  was  the  proclamation 
to  all  the  world  of  eternal  salvation  through  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  and  obedi- 
ence to  his  commands,  and  it  is  inconceivable  that  he,  or  any  one  else  in  his 
day,  can  have  invented  and  put  into  the  mouth  of  Peter  a  number  of  dis- 
courses in  which  no  trace  of  such  a  Christianity  occurs,  and  in  which  there  is 
no  reference  whatever  to  the  importance  and  saving  character  of  faith. 

2  Acts  iii.  1.    See  Schurer,  I.e.  II.  S.  234,  237  (Eng.  Trans.  Div.  II.  Vol.  I., 
pp.  287,  290).    Cf.  also  Acts  x.  14,  xv.  5,  xxi.  21  sq. 


PRIMITIVE  JEWISH   CHRISTIANITY  65 

posed  that  the  effect  of  their  Christian  faith  was  to  make 
all  of  the  early  disciples  more  devout  and  earnest  Jews 
than  they  had  ever  been;  for,  as  the  consummation  was 
at  hand,  it  behooved  them  to  prepare  for  it  by  the  strictest 
and  most  scrupulous  discharge  of  all  their  religious  duties. 
It  was  fitting  that  they,  who  were  the  representatives  of 
the  Messiah,  should  reveal  in  their  lives  the  mighty  in- 
fluence of  the  principles  which  they  preached,  and  that 
their  righteousness  and  piety  should  commend  themselves 
to  all  beholders.  The  idea  that  they  constituted  the  elect 
portion  of  the  people,  called  by  God  to  be  heirs  of  the 
coming  kingdom,  would  naturally  lead  them  to  feel  the 
necessity  of  observing  God's  law  with  especial  scrupu- 
lousness ;  would  make  them  sensible  of  a  peculiar  obliga- 
tion, such  as  they  cannot  have  felt  while  they  were  simple 
Galileans,  on  the  same  footing  with  all  their  fellows. 
Such  utterances  of  Christ  as  that  recorded  in  Matt.  v.  19, 
"Except  your  righteousness  exceed  the  righteousness  of 
the  scribes  and  Pharisees,  ye  shall  in  nowise  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  doubtless  influenced  them  greatly 
at  this  time,  and  it  must  have  been  their  conviction  that, 
simple  Galileans  though  they  were,  they  ought  to  exceed 
all  other  Jews,  even  the  proudest  Pharisees  of  Jerusalem, 
in  their  devotion  to  the  national  faith.  That  Jesus  had 
intended  to  abrogate  the  Jewish  law,  or  release  his  fol- 
lowers from  its  control,  occurred  to  none  of  them.1 

These  early  Christians,  then,  were  thoroughgoing  Jews 
and  never  thought  of  departing  from  the  customs  of 
their  fathers.  But  their  Judaism  had  a  new  element  in 
it,  which  modified  their  lives  and  marked  them  off  from 
their  unconverted  countrymen.  They  were  bound  to  each 
other,  and  distinguished  from  all  without  their  circle,  as 
disciples  of  one  whom  they,  and  they  alone,  believed  to 
be  the  Messiah,  and  as  heirs  of  the  Messianic  kingdom 
which  they  expected  him  soon  to  establish.  Their  expec- 
tation of  Christ's  speedy  return  dominated  all  their  lives. 
They  felt  themselves  to  be  citizens  not  of  this  geon,  but 
of  another,  and  all  their  interests  centred  in  the  future. 

i  On  Christ's  own  view  of  the  law,  see  above,  p.  25  sq. 
P 


66  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

Doubtless  this  expectation  had  much  to  do  with  the  com- 
parative indifference  toward  the  things  of  this  world 
which  many  of  them  exhibited.  It  could  not  fail  to  foster 
an  unworldly  or  other-worldly  disposition,  and  it  may 
have  had  something  to  do  with  the  poverty  which  so  long 
prevailed  in  the  mother  church.  Interested,  as  they  all 
were,  more  in  the  future  than  in  the  present,  and  expect- 
ing shortly  to  receive  blessings  greater  than  any  that 
could  be  acquired  by  human  effort,  it  is  not  unlikely  that 
many  of  them  neglected  their  common  occupations,  and 
spent  their  time  largely  in  prayer  and  praise,  and  converse 
respecting  the  future.  This  at  least  is  the  impression 
made  by  the  early  chapters  of  Acts,  and  it  is  exactly  what 
we  might  expect.  Poverty  under  such  circumstances 
was  neither  a  disgrace  nor  a  hardship.  To  be  indifferent 
to  the  comforts  and  luxuries  of  life  was  not  a  duty  merely, 
but  a  privilege  as  well.1 

But  the  absorption  of  the  minds  and  hearts  of  the  dis- 
ciples in  the  kingdom  which  was  so  soon  to  be  established, 
and  the  subordination  of  all  other  interests  thereto,  had 
the  effect  of  binding  them  most  closely  to  each  other. 
They  were  not  simply  fellow-disciples  of  a  common  Mas- 
ter, fellow-believers  in  a  common  faith,  they  were  brethren 
in  the  fullest  sense,  and  the  tie  that  united  them  was  far 
stronger  than  their  ordinary  family  and  social  ties.  Doubt- 
less the  fact  that  many  of  them  were  comparative  strangers 
in  Jerusalem  contributed  to  their  sense  of  isolation  from 
the  outside  world,  and  tended  to  enhance  their  feeling  of 
brotherhood,  but  the  impulse  had  a  deeper  basis  than  any 
such  accidental  circumstance.  Whether  at  home  or  away 
from  home,  they  constituted  one  household,  and  into  this 
household  they  received  all  the  converts  to  their  faith. 
They  did  not  conceive  their  mission  to  be  simply  the  pro- 
mulgation of  a  truth,  or  the  impartation,  to  those  outside, 

1  Very  likely  Jesus'  words  to  the  rich  young  man  in  Matt.  xix.  21,  and  his 
declaration  concerning  the  rich  man's  difficulty  in  entering  the  kingdom  (vs. 
23  sq.)  tended  to  promote  their  contempt  for  worldly  possessions.  And  doubt- 
less their  evident  disregard  for  the  things  of  the  present,  and  their  expectation 
of  enjoying  the  richest  blessings  in  the  near  future,  proved  very  attractive  to 
the  poor,  and  helps  to  explain  the  fact  that  they  won  converts  especially  from 
that  class. 


PRIMITIVE  JEWISH   CHRISTIANITY  67 

of  benefits  that  they  had  themselves  received.  Their 
mission  was  to  bring  others  within  the  family  circle,  that 
they  might  there  enjoy  the  blessings  promised  to  the  elect 
children  of  God. 

It  is  in  the  light  of  this  sense  of  brotherhood  that  we 
are  to  explain  the  kind  of  communism  which  the  author 
of  the  Acts  represents  as  practised  in  the  church  of  Jeru- 
salem.1 It  was  not,  to  be  sure,  an  absolute  communism. 
Various  indications  show  that  Luke's  general  statements 
are  to  be  taken  with  some  qualification.2  But  even 
though  not  complete,  the  principle  on  which  it  was  based 
was  communistic.  It  was  not  mere  charity  that  was  prac- 
tised; it  was  the  recognition  of  the  claims  of  the  Christian 
family  as  superior  to  the  claims  of  the  individual,  and 
it  was  the  relief  of  the  necessities  of  the  brethren,  not 
simply  because  they  were  needy  and  suffering,  but  because 
they  were  brethren.3  The  expectation  of  the  speedy  re- 
turn of  Christ,  and  the  consequent  undervaluation  of 
earthly  possessions,  of  course  made  such  communism 
easier,  but  does  not  account  for  it.  It  was  the  fruit  of 
the  conception  of  the  church  as  a  family,  which  prevailed 
universally  at  this  time. 

It  is  clear,  in  the  light  of  all  that  has  been  said,  that 
the  early  Christians  of  Jerusalem  must  have  found  their 
life  very  largely  in  their  association  with  one  another,  and 
that  they  must  have  been  much  together.  We  should 
expect  also  that  the  religious  impulse  would  make  itself 
felt  in  all  parts  of  their  life.  They  could  not  confine  their 

1  Acts  ii.  44,  45,  iv.  32,  34  sq. 

2  Acts  vi.  1  sq.  shows  that  it  was  not  an  equal  division  of  all  the  property 
belonging  to  all  the  disciples  that  was  thought  of,  but  only  a  distribution  to 
such  as  were  in  need.    So  Ananias  and  Sapphira  were  not  condemned  for  fail- 
ing to  turn  over  all  that  they  had  to  the  church,  but  for  pretending  to  be  more 
generous  than  they  were  (Acts  v.  4) ;  and  their  case  clearly  shows  that  the 
whole  thing  was  voluntary  and  not  required,  while  in  communism  in  the  strict 
sense,  no  room  is  left  for  individual  generosity.    The  fact  that  Barnabas  is 
especially  commended  for  selling  his  field  also  suggests  that  such  generosity 
was  uncommon,  and  there  is  no  implication  in  the  account  that  he  turned  over 
to  the  apostles  everything  he  had. 

3  The  love  for  one's  neighbor  upon  which  Christ  laid  such  stress  and  which 
he  expressly  made  to  embrace  all  men,  was  commonly  interpreted  by  the  early 
Christians,  both  Jewish  and  Gentile,  to  mean  simply  love  for  the  brethren, 
fellow-members  of  the  one  household  of  faith.    See  below,  p.  508  sq. 


68  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

spiritual  exercises  and  employments  to  certain  fixed  hours 
and  days ;  their  entire  life  must  be  a  life  of  expectation 
and  of  preparation,  and  thus  religious  in  the  fullest  sense. 
It  would  be  a  mistake  to  picture  them  as  holding  regular 
and  formal  religious  services  such  as  are  held  to-day. 
They  did  not  constitute  a  separate  synagogue,  and  they 
never  thought  of  substituting  their  own  meetings  for 
the  regular  services  of  the  synagogue.  The  latter  they 
doubtless  attended  faithfully,  in  company  with  their 
neighbors,  just  as  they  had  before  their  conversion.  They 
may  have  been  in  the  habit  of  gathering  together  in  a  body 
from  time  to  time  for  common  worship  and  for  mutual 
edification  and  inspiration,  as  we  find  them  doing  in  the 
days  immediately  preceding  Pentecost ;  but  as  their  num- 
bers grew  larger,  such  general  gatherings  must  have  become 
increasingly  difficult,  and  it  was  at  any  rate  not  in  them, 
but  in  their  daily  intercourse  with  one  another  and  in  the 
little  family  gatherings  from  house  to  house,  that  their 
Christian  life  found  fullest  expression  and  the  sense  of 
Christian  brotherhood,  which  was  all-controlling,  had 
freest  play. 

The  feeling  of  brotherhood  voiced  itself  perhaps  most 
clearly  in  the  breaking  of  bread,  which  the  author  of  the 
Acts  refers  to  in  ii.  42  and  46.  He  undoubtedly  employs 
the  expression  to  denote  the  Lord's  Supper,1  for  the  phrase 
was  a  technical  one  in  his  day.  The  accuracy  of  his  re- 
port, that  the  Lord's  Supper  was  eaten  by  the  primitive 
disciples  of  Jerusalem,  can  hardly  be  questioned.  The 
general  prevalence  of  the  rite  from  Paul's  time  on,  and 
not  in  Pauline  churches  alone,  but  in  all  parts  of 
Christendom,  makes  it  almost  necessary  to  assume  that  the 
custom  was  already  observed  in  the  very  earliest  period.2 

1  The  KvpiaK&v  Sriirvov,  as  Paul  calls  it. 

2  Professor  Percy  Gardner,  in  a  very  suggestive  pamphlet  entitled  The  Ori- 
gin of  the  Lord's  Supper  (1893),  maintains  that  the  Supper  was  introduced  by 
Paul.    But  it  is  inconceivable  that  the  Jewish  wing  of  the  church  would  have 
taken  it  up  had  it  originated  with  him.    Its  general  prevalence  at  an  early 
day  in  all  parts  of  the  church  can  be  accounted  for  only  on  the  assumption 
that  it  was  pre-Pauline.    At  the  same  time,  the  fact  must  be  recognized  that 
it  is  not  absolutely  certain  that  Jesus  himself  actually  instituted  such  a 
supper  and  directed  his  disciples  to  eat  and  drink  in  remembrance  of  him 


PRIMITIVE  JEWISH   CHRISTIANITY  69 

That  the  disciples  held  a  special  service  and  partook  of 
a  special  communion  meal  there  is  no  sign.  It  is  far 

(els  TTJV  €fj.r]v  di>d^.vfj<ni>,a,s  Paul  says  in  1  Cor.  xi.  24,  25).  Expecting  as  he 
apparently  did  to  return  at  an  early  day  (see  p.  24),  he  can  hardly  have  been 
solicitous  to  provide  for  the  preservation  of  his  memory ;  and  it  is  a  notahle 
fact  that  neither  Matthew  nor  Mark  records  such  a  command,  while  the  pas- 
sage in  which  it  occurs  in  Luke  is  omitted  in  many  of  the  oldest  MSS.,  and  is 
regarded  as  an  interpolation  by  Westcott  and  Hort.  Even  if  the  words  belong 
in  the  Gospel  of  Luke  (as  some  maintain),  they  are  evidently  dependent  upon 
Paul,  and  supply  no  independent  testimony  as  to  the  original  utterance  of 
Christ.  It  is  difficult  to  understand  how  Matthew  and  Mark  can  have  abridged 
the  more  elaborate  formula  of  Paul  and  Luke,  and  especially  how  they  can 
have  omitted  the  words  in  question.  On  the  other  hand,  the  enlargement  o'f 
the  briefer  and  simpler  formula  is  easier  to  explain.  There  can  be  little  doubt 
that  Mark  and  Matthew,  so  far  as  they  agree,  represent  the  primitive  tradi- 
tion as  to  Christ's  words.  But  Matthew  has  also  enlarged  the  original  formula 
by  adding  the  words  et's  &(j>€<nv  dfiapTtuv  (xxvi.  28),  which  occur  in  none  of 
the  parallel  accounts.  We  must  go  back  to  Mark,  therefore,  for  the  primitive 
form.  Compare  Jiilicher :  Zur  Geschichte  der  Abendmahlsfeier  in  der  dltesten 
Kirche,  in  the  Theologische  Abhandlungen  (J.  von  Weizsdcker  gewidmet,  1892, 
S.  235  sq.  ;  and  the  note  in  Briggs'  Messiah  of  the  Gospels,  p.  123. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Jesus  ate  the  last  supper  with  his  disciples,  as 
recorded  in  all  three  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  and  that  he  said  of  the  bread 
which  he  broke  and  gave  to  his  companions,  "This  is  my  body,"  and  of  the 
wine  which  he  gave  them  to  drink,  "  This  is  my  blood  of  the  covenant  which 
is  shed  for  many,"  and  that  he  did  it  with  a  reference  to  his  approaching 
death.  (Weizsacker  maintains,  I.e.  S.  568,  that  in  speaking  of  his  body 
Jesus  was  thinking  of  his  continued  presence  with  his  disciples,  and  that  only 
his  reference  to  his  shed  blood  is  to  be  connected  with  his  death;  but  see 
Jiilicher,  I.e.  S.  241  sq.)  But  more  than  this  our  sources  hardly  warrant 
us  in  asserting  positively.  It  was  apparently  not  the  institution  of  a  memorial 
feast  that  he  had  in  mind  so  much  as  the  announcement  of  his  impending 
death  and  the  assurance  that  it  would  result  not  in  evil  but  in  good  to  his  dis- 
ciples. He  had  already  told  them  that  he  must  die,  and  that  his  death  would 
be  in  reality  a  means  of  blessing  to  them.  He  now  repeated  that  prophecy 
and  promise  in  vivid  and  impressive  symbol.  As  the  bread  was  broken  and 
the  wine  poured  out,  so  must  his  body  be  broken  and  his  blood  shed,  but  not 
in  vain ;  it  was  for  their  sake,  and  not  for  theirs  alone,  but  for  the  sake  of 
many.  To  read  into  this  simple  and  touching  act  —  unpremeditated  and  yet 
summing  up  in  itself  the  whole  story  of  his  life  of  service  and  of  sacrifice  — 
subtle  and  abstruse  doctrines  is  to  do  Jesus  a  great  injustice ;  for  it  takes  from 
the  scene  all  its  beautiful  naturalness,  which  is  so  characteristic  of  him  and 
so  perfectly  in  keeping  with  his  direct  and  unaffected  thought  and  speech. 
He  was  not  teaching  theology,  nor  was  he  giving  veiled  utterance  to  any  mys- 
terious truth  concerning  his  person  and  work.  He  was  simply  foretelling  his 
death  and  endeavoring  to  impart  to  his  disciples  something  of  that  divine 
trust  and  calmness  with  which  he  approached  it.  But  after  his  death,  when 
his  followers  ate  bread  and  drank  wine  together,  they  could  not  fail  to  recall 
the  solemn  moment  in  which  Jesus  had  broken  bread  in  their  presence,  and 
with  a  reference  to  his  impending  death  had  pronounced  the  bread  his  body 
and  the  wine  his  blood  ;  and  remembering  that  scene,  their  eating  and  drink- 
ing together  must  inevitably,  whether  with  or  without  a  command  from  him, 
take  on  the  character  of  a  memorial  feast,  in  which  they  looked  back  to 
his  death,  as  he  had  looked  forward  to  it.  They  knew  that  they  were 


70  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

more  likely  that  whenever  they  ate  together  they  ate  the 
Lord's  Supper.  Not  that  it  preceded  or  followed  the 
ordinary  meal,  but  that  the  whole  meal  was  the  Lord's 
Supper;  that  they  partook  of  no  ordinary,  secular,  unholy 
meals,  of  none  that  was  not  a  Kvpiaicov  SeiTrvov. 

The  Kowavia,  to  which  reference  is  made  in  Acts  ii.  42, 
thus  found  its  chief  expression  in  their  common  meals, 
but  it  voiced  itself  also  in  all  the  gatherings  of  the  dis- 
ciples. It  is  said  in  the  same  passage  that  they  continued 
steadfastly  in  the  apostles'  teaching  and  in  the  prayers. 
It  goes  without  saying  that  their  gratitude  to  God  for 
the  peculiar  blessings  which  they  enjoyed  as  his  elect 
people  must  have  found  utterance  whenever  possible  in 
prayer  and  hymn,  and  the  example  which  Luke  has  given 
us  in  Acts  iv.  23  sq.  may  be  taken  as  fairly  representative 
of  all  the  occasions  on  which  any  number  of  them  met 
together.  At  all  such  times  they  doubtless  felt  the  Spirit 
of  God  working  mightily  among  them,  and  prophecy  and 
speaking  with  tongues  were  very  likely  of  daily  occurrence. 
But  they  must  also  have  dwelt  much  upon  the  utterances 
of  their  Master,  as  Luke  indicates  when  he  says  that 
they  continued  steadfastly  in  the  apostles'  teaching.1 

fulfilling  his  wish  in  thus  gathering  in  brotherly  fellowship,  and  they  must 
have  felt  from  the  beginning,  whether  they  had  his  explicit  command  for  it  or 
not,  that  they  were  doing  only  what  he  would  have  them  do,  when  they  re- 
peated his  reassuring  words  for  their  own  comfort  and  in  fond  remembrance 
of  their  Master. 

Even  if  one  were  to  question,  as  Jiilicher  does,  whether  Christ  actually  did 
institute  a  memorial  feast,  which  his  disciples  were  to  continue  celebrating 
until  his  return,  it  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  Paul  was  reproducing  what  he 
had  received  from  the  earlier  disciples  when  he  represented  Jesus  as  saying, 
"  This  do  in  remembrance  of  me."  It  can  hardly  be  doubted,  in  other  words, 
that  it  was  believed,  at  any  rate  at  an  early  day,  if  not  from  the  beginning,  in 
the  church  of  Jerusalem,  that  Jesus  had  commanded  them  to  do  as  they  actu- 
ally were  doing  when  they  ate  and  drank  together. 

On  the  Lord's  Supper  in  the  primitive  church  see,  in  addition  to  the  notable 
espay  of  Jiilicher  already  referred  to,  Spitta:  Die  urchristlichen  Traditionen 
iiber  Ursprung  und  Sinn  des  Abendmahls  in  his  Zur  Geschichte  und  Litteratur 
des  Urchristenthums,  I.  205  sq. ;  Harnack:  Brot  und  Wasser:  die  eucharist- 
ischen  Elements  bei  Justin,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  VII.  143  sq. ;  Lob- 
stein  :  La  doctrine  de  la  saint  cene ;  and  Schultzen :  Das  Abendmahl  im  Neuen 
Testament. 

1  The  Apostles'  teaching  had  to  do  primarily  with  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus 
(cf.  Acts  iv.  2 ;  v.  42,  and  see  p.  54  above) ;  but  within  the  circle  of  the  disciples 
it  cannot  have  been  confined  to  this. 


PRIMITIVE  JEWISH   CHRISTIANITY  71 

To  the  personal  disciples  of  Jesus,  and  above  all  to  the 
Twelve,  they  of  course  looked  for  their  knowledge  of  his 
sayings  and  for  such  explanation  and  interpretation  of 
them  as  might  be  needed.  His  prophecies  of  the  future 
must  have  interested  them  especially  and  invited  careful 
thought,  and  his  words  dealing  with  their  duties  as  chil- 
dren of  the  kingdom  could  seem  scarcely  less  important. 
It  cannot  have  been  long,  then,  before  a  comparatively 
fixed  body  of  teaching  took  shape,  embracing  the  most 
striking  and  characteristic,  and  therefore  the  most  easily 
remembered,  of  his  utterances,  and  the  tradition  thus 
gradually  formed  ultimately  recorded  itself  in  the  Logia, 
and  perhaps  in  other  similar  documents.1 

The  Scriptures  the  early  Christians  would  of  course 
hear  read  in  the  synagogue,  but  they  must  have  made 
large  use  of  them  also  when  they  came  together  by  them- 
selves, pointing  out  the  new  sense  in  which  this  and  that 
passage  was  to  be  read  in  the  light  of  the  Gospel,  and 
thus  gaining  increased  instruction  and  inspiration.  The 
tradition  early  tended  to  become  fixed  along  this  line  as 
well,  and  it  is  not  surprising  that  we  find  in  the  literature 
of  the  first  and  second  centuries  many  Old  Testament  pas- 
sages occurring  and  recurring,  and  nearly  always  with 
the  same  application  and  interpretation. 

A  remarkable  feature  in  the  life  of  the  early  Christians 
of  Jerusalem  was  their  vivid  realization  of  the  presence 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Though  they  mingled  so  freely  with 
their  unconverted  countrymen,  and  had  so  much  in  com- 
mon with  them,  they  really  lived  in  another  world,  under 
the  direct  influence  and  guidance,  as  they  believed,  of 
the  Spirit  of  God.  It  is  true  that  Paul's  idea  that  the 
Spirit  is  the  active,  moving  power  in  the  ordinary  Chris- 
tian life,  and  that  the  life  of  every  believer  is  spiritual  in 
the  fullest  sense,  seems  not  to  have  been  prevalent  among 
them ;  but  they  had,  nevertheless,  a  most  vivid  sense  of 
the  Spirit's  presence  and  activity.2  Instead  of  finding 

1  On  the  Logia  see  below,  p.  569  sq. 

2  This  conception  of  the  Spirit's  presence  comes  out  very  clearly  in  con- 
nection with  the  case  of  Ananias  and  Sapphira,  whose  effort  to  deceive  the 
church  is  represented  by  Peter  as  deception  practised  upon  the  Holy  Spirit, 


72  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

him,  however,  in  the  every-day  faith  and  piety  of  the 
common  disciple,  they  found  him  commonly  only  where 
there  was  something  striking,  or  remarkable,  or  unusual, 
whether  in  character,  in  word,  or  in  work.1  To  see  vi- 
sions, to  prophesy,  to  speak  with  tongues,  to  proclaim  the 
word  of  God  with  more  than  merely  human  power  and 
boldness,  all  this  was  proof  of  a  divine  influence  and  con- 
trol of  which  the  ordinary  Christian  life  was  supposed  to 
show  no  evidence.  Such  spiritual  elevation  was  possible 
to  most  disciples  only  on  occasion.  They  might  be  filled 
with  the  Spirit  at  the  time  of  their  conversion ;  and,  lifted 
far  above  the  common  limitations  of  life,  they  might 
speak  with  tongues,  or  prophesy,  or  give  some  other  strik- 
ing manifestation  of  spiritual  possession  fitted  to  amaze 
and  impress  all  beholders.  Or,  again,  when  they  were 
gathered  together  for  prayer  and  mutual  converse,  the 
Spirit  might  descend  upon  all  of  them  and  make  his  pres- 
ence known  in  similar  strange  and  mysterious  ways. 
Such  phenomena  seem  to  have  been  frequently  witnessed; 
and  yet  they  were  isolated  occurrences,  which  were  dis- 
tinguished sharply  from  the  every-day  experience  of  the 
disciples.  The  way  in  which  they  are  referred  to  in  our 
sources  shows  that  plainly  enough. 

But  to  some  Christians  the  spiritual  elevation  possible 
to  most  of  them  only  now  and  then  seems  to  have  been 
habitual;  and  they  were  known  among  their  brethren  as 
men  "filled  with  the  Spirit."  It  was  disciples  of  this 
stamp  that  the  apostles  suggested  should  be  chosen  to 
manage  the  distribution  of  the  alms  of  the  church  of  Jeru- 

The  significance  of  the  case  is  not  affected  by  the  doubts  that  may  be  cast 
upon  the  accuracy  of  the  account  in  its  present  form.  Even  if  we  were  to 
suppose,  with  Wendt,  that  the  report  which  we  have  in  Acts  was  simply 
due  to  the  sudden  death  of  the  guilty  pair,  which  was  looked  upon  as  a 
direct  visitation  of  the  Spirit,  or  that  Ananias'  death  was  interpreted  in  that 
way,  and  Sapphira's  name  was  afterward  linked  with  his  by  tradition ;  in 
any  case  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  Luke  took  the  account  from  his 
sources,  and  that  it  represents  consequently  the  conceptions  of  the  primitive 
Christians  of  Jerusalem. 

1  In  this  they  were  entirely  in  accord  with  the  common  Jewish  idea  of  the 
activity  of  the  Spirit.  Neither  in  the  Old  Testament  nor  in  the  later  Jewish 
literature  is  the  piety  and  morality  of  the  ordinary  individual  traced  back  to 
the  Spirit.  See  Gunkel :  Die  Wirkunyen  des  heiliyen  Geistes,  S.  9. 


PRIMITIVE  JEWISH   CHRISTIANITY  73 

salem ;  and  so  Stephen  is  expressly  said  to  have  been  full 
of  faith  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.1  The  same  is  said  also 
of  Barnabas  in  another  connection.2  It  is  not  to  be  sup- 
posed that  there  Avas  any  sharp  or  official  line  of  demarca- 
tion drawn  between  such  men  and  their  brethren,  but  it 
is  evident  that  they  were  pre-eminent  for  their  faith  and 
boldness  and  spiritual  power,  —  so  pre-eminent  that  only 
the  permanent  indwelling  of  the  Spirit  of  God  seemed 
sufficient  to  account  for  them. 

The  purpose  and  effect  of  the  Spirit's  presence  are  not 
always  specified  in  our  sources,  but  in  so  many  cases  the 
enlightenment  of  the  disciples,  and  the  quickened  power 
of  utterance  that  resulted,  are  traced  directly  to  the  Spirit, 
that  it  is  evident  that  his  influence  upon  their  thoughts 
and  words  was  looked  upon  as  his  most  characteristic 
activity.  The  prophecy  of  Joel,  which  Peter  quoted  at 
Pentecost,  foretells  an  era  of  visions  and  of  prophecy,  and 
the  same  conception  of  the  Spirit's  influence  runs  through 
all  the  early  records.  Christ  himself  gave  commandment 
to  his  apostles  through  the  Holy  Spirit;3  filled  with  the 
Spirit,  the  disciples  at  Pentecost  spoke  with  tongues,  as 
they  did  on  many  subsequent  occasions;  filled  with  the 
Spirit,  they  bore  testimony  with  power,  they  spoke  the 
word  of  God  with  boldness,  they  were  endowed  with  wis- 
dom, they  received  revelations  and  foretold  the  future.4 
And  so,  on  various  occasions,  they  received  directions  from 
the  Spirit  as  to  the  particular  course  of  action  which  they 
were  to  pursue.  Philip  was  instructed  by  the  Spirit  to 
accost  the  Ethiopian  eunuch,  and  after  his  interview 
with  him  was  ended,  he  was  led  away  by  the  Spirit  to 
another  place.5  Peter  was  directed  by  the  Spirit  to  accept 
the  invitation  of  Cornelius,  and  to  go  back  to  Ceesarea 
with  the  messengers  he  had  sent.6  Paul  also  frequently 
received  instructions  from  the  Spirit,7  and  the  apostles 
and  elders  in  Jerusalem  followed  the  Spirit's  guidance 
in  composing  their  decree  for  the  Gentile  church.8  It 

1  Acts  vi.  5.  5  Acts  viii.  29,  39. 

2  Acts  xi.  24.  6  Acts  x.  19,  xi.  12. 

8  Acts  i.  2.  7  Acts  xvi.  6,  7,  xx.  23. 

4  Cf.  Acts  iv.  8,  31,  v.  32,  vi.  10,  vii.  55,  x.  46,  xi.  28.      »  Acts  xv.  28. 


74  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

is  in  such  enlightenment  and  inspiration  that  the  activ- 
ity of  the  Spirit  seems  commonly  to  have  exhausted 
itself  according  to  the  understanding  of  the  earliest 
disciples. 

And  yet  there  were  other  supernatural  manifestations 
in  the  life  of  the  primitive  Christians  of  Jerusalem  of  a 
very  striking  character.  The  early  chapters  of  the  Book 
of  Acts  contain  many  references  to  signs  and  wonders 
wrought  by  the  disciples.  In  addition  to  the  apostles  in 
general1  and  Peter  in  particular,2  Stephen3  and  Philip4 
are  also  reported  to  have  performed  many  miracles,  and 
even  Ananias,  an  otherwise  unknown  disciple,  is  repre- 
sented as  the  agent  in  restoring  Paul's  sight.5  On  two 
occasions  a  miracle  is  accomplished  by  an  angel  of  the 
Lord,  who  in  one  case  releases  the  apostles  in  general 
from  prison,6  in  the  other  case  Peter  alone.7  It  is  true 
that  most  of  Luke's  statements  are  of  a  very  general  char- 
acter, and  sound  like  additions  of  his  own,8  but  some 
specific  cases  are  reported  where  it  can  hardly  be  doubted 
that  he  made  use  of  earlier  sources,  either  written  or  oral,9 
and  though  signs  and  wonders  may  not  have  been  as 
common  as  his  account  would  seem  to  indicate,  the  fact 
that  the  early  Christians  believed  that  the  miraculous 
powers  which  Jesus  had  exercised  were  still  exhibited 
among  them,  is  confirmed  by  Mark  xvi.  17,  18,  where  a 
prophecy  of  Christ's  is  recorded,10  by  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,11  and  above  all  by  Paul,  who  not  merely  claims 
to  have  wrought  "signs  and  wonders  and  mighty  works" 
himself,12  but  also  implies  that  the  other  apostles  or  mis- 

1  Acts  ii.  43,  v.  12.    Cf.  also  iv.  30,  where  the  disciples  pray  that  signs  and 
wonders  may  be  done  through  the  name  of  Jesus,  without  specifying  by  whom. 

2  Acts  iii.  6,  v.  15  sq.,  ix.  34,  40.    Cf.  also  v.  5,  10,  where  Peter  is  repre- 
sented as  the  mouthpiece  of  the  Spirit  in  passing  condemnation  upon  Ananias 
and  Sapphira. 

»  Acts  vi.  8.  5  Acts  ix.  17.     7  Acts  xii.  7. 

4  Acts  viii.  7,  13.    «  Acts  v.  19.      8  Acts  ii.  43,  v.  12,  15  sq.,  vi.  8,  viii.  7,  13. 

9  Acts  iii.  6  sq.,  v.  5,  10,  ix.  18,  34,  40,  xii.  7 ;  possibly  also  v.  1<». 

10  Whether  the  words  were  actually  spoken  by  Christ  or  not  they  are  signifi- 
cant, for  they  show  that  the  belief  was  held  at  the  time  the  passage  was  writ- 
ten that  miraculous  powers  existed  among  the  followers  of  Jesus. 

n  Heb.  ii.  4 ;  cf.  also  Jas.  v.  i:>. 

13  Rom.  xv.  18;  2  Cor.  xii.  12 ;  cf.  also  Acts  xxviii.  8  sq. 


PRIMITIVE   JEWISH   CHRISTIANITY  75 

sionaries,  of  whom  there  were  so  many  in  the  early  church, 
possessed  a  like  power.1  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose 
that  in  this  respect  the  primitive  Christians  of  Jerusalem 
differed  from  other  Christians  in  the  world  outside. 
Doubtless  there  was  as  vivid  a  sense  of  the  presence  and 
miraculous  activity  of  the  divine  among  them  as  among 
their  brethren  anywhere. 

And  yet  it  is  a  remarkable  fact  that,  so  far  as  our  sources 
enable  us  to  judge,  the  early  disciples  did  not  commonly 
connect  such  wonderful  works  with  the  Spirit  of  God.  In 
the  Gospels  the  agency  or  power  by  which  Christ  did  his 
great  works  is  not  ordinarily  specified,  and  only  once  is 
such  a  work  brought  into  any  connection  with  the  Spirit, 
and  then  the  reference  to  the  Spirit  is  probably  an  addi- 
tion to  the  original  source.2  In  the  Book  of  Acts  Christ's 
wonders  are  ascribed  to  the  Spirit  on  one  occasion  by 
Peter,3  but  nowhere  else  in  the  book  is  the  Spirit  brought 
into  connection  with  any  such  works,  and  the  signs 
wrought  by  the  disciples  are  commonly  represented  as 
wrought  in  Jesus'  name  or  by  his  power.4  Paul  distinctly 
recognizes  the  Spirit  as  the  giver  of  the  power  to  perform 
miracles,5  and  the  failure  of  the  author  of  Acts  to  ascribe 
such  wonders  to  him,  when  he  mentions  the  wonders 
themselves  so  frequently,  seems  inexplicable,  except  on 
the  assumption  that  he  was  following  his  sources,  and 
that  in  them  the  marvellous  works  were  not  connected 
with  the  Spirit.  But  such  reticence  on  the  part  of  the 
sources  of  which  Luke  made  use,  can  hardly  have  been 
accidental.  We  may  fairly  see  in  it,  in  fact,  the  influence 
of  the  traditional  conception  of  the  Jews,  who  always 
thought  of  the  Spirit  primarily  as  the  power  which  worked 
through  the  prophets,  revealing  to  them  the  will  and  truth 
of  God,  and  impelling  them  to  declare  that  will  and  truth 


i  2  Cor.  xii.  12. 

a  In  Matt.  xii.  28,  Christ  says :  "  If  I  by  the  Spirit  of  God  cast  out  devils  "  ; 
but  in  the  parallel  passage  in  Luke  (xi.  20),  the  phrase  "  ringer  of  God  "  occurs 
in  the  place  of  "  Spirit  of  God,"  and  is  probably  the  original  reading. 

3  Acts  x.  38. 

4  Acts  iii.  (5,  iv.  30,  ix.  17,  34,  xvi.  18 ;  cf.  also  Mark  xvi.  17,  18. 
6  1  Cor.  xii.  9  sq. ;  cf.  Gal.  iii.  5. 


76  THE  APOSTOLIC    AGE 

to  others.1  But  we  may  perhaps  go  further  and  conclude 
that  the  wonderful  works  which  are  recorded  in  the  early 
chapters  of  Acts  were  so  exceptional  and  infrequent,  that 
they  were  entirely  overshadowed  by  the  common  buc  no 
less  striking  manifestations  of  the  Spirit's  activity  in 
other  lines,  and  that  they  were  consequently  not  thought 
of,  like  the  latter,  as  characteristic  signs  of  the  Spirit's 
presence  in  the  disciples,  but  only  as  special  deeds 
wrought  through  them  under  special  circumstances  by 
Jesus  himself.  Paul's  advance  upon  the  earlier  concep- 
tion at  this  point  is  of  a  piece  with  his  general  advance, 
in  ascribing  the  entire  Christian  life  in  all  its  activities, 
the  most  common  as  well  as  the  most  uncommon,  to  the 
indwelling  Spirit,  whose  abiding  presence  alone  makes 
the  Christian  life  possible. 

In  the  beginning  the  disciples  were  very  likely  largely 
Galileans,  but  they  soon  won  over  to  their  faith  many  of 
the  residents  of  Jerusalem,  and  as  their  circle  widened, 
there  entered  not  only  Palestinian,  but  also  Hellenistic 
Jews,  who  were  largely  represented  in  Jerusalem  at  this 
time,  and  even  proselytes,  who  were  also  numerous  in  the 
city.  We  first  hear  of  such  Hellenists  and  proselytes 
within  the  church  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  Acts.  It  is 
reported  there  that  the  Hellenists,  or  Grecian  Jews,  com- 
plained that  in  the  daily  distribution  of  alms  their  widows 
were  neglected.2  That  this  should  have  been  the  case 
is  not  surprising.  Even  when  they  were  loyal  or  orthodox 
in  their  Judaism,  the  Hellenists  were  not  always  treated 
by  their  Palestinian  brethren  with  the  same  measure  of 
respect  that  was  shown  the  Jew  who  had  never  made  his 
home  among  the  Gentiles.  It  may  well  be  that  their  tra- 

1  It  is  true  that  physical  wonders  are  occasionally  ascribed  to  the  Spirit's 
influence  in  the  Old  Testament.    But  such  a  connection  is  exceptional.     See 
Wendt :  Die  Begriffe  Fleisch  und  Geist  im  biblischen  Sprachgebrauch,  S.  32  sq. 

2  Wendt  (in  Meyer's  Commentary,  7th  ed.)  maintains  that  up  to  this  time 
the  distribution  of  alms  had  been  in  the  hands  not  of  the  apostles,  or  at  any 
rate  not  exclusively,  but  of  private  individuals,  and  that  the  change  instituted 
by  the  appointment  of  the  Seven  consisted  not  in  transferring  to  the  latter 
duties  hitherto  performed  by  the  apostles,  but  in  bringing  under  official  over- 
sight and  control  a  function  which  had  been  hitherto  the  business  of  no  one 
in  particular.    But  see  below,  p.  658. 


PRIMITIVE   JEWISH   CHRISTIANITY  77 

ditioual  prejudice  rnade  itself  felt  even  within  the  Chris- 
tian circle,  and  had  something  to  do  with  the  cavalier 
treatment  accorded  the  Hellenistic  widows.  It  cannot  be 
supposed  that  the  difficulty  was  due  to  the  fact  that  these 
Hellenists  were  less  orthodox  and  less  careful  in  their 
observance  of  the  law  than  their  brethren;  for  had  that 
been  the  case,  the  division  between  the  two  classes  in  the 
church  would  have  been  more  far-reaching  and  lasting 
than  it  was.  There  is  no  reason,  indeed,  to  suppose  that 
the  foreign  Jews  resident  in  Jerusalem  were  any  less  zeal- 
ous for  the  traditions  of  the  fathers  and  elders  than  the 
natives  of  the  Holy  Land.  Their  situation  in  Jerusalem 
was  very  different  from  the  situation  of  those  Hellenists 
who  lived  in  Greek  and  Roman  communities,  and  the  in- 
fluences which  led  the  latter  to  allegorize  and  spiritualize 
the  law  were  largely  wanting  in  their  case.  It  may  safely 
be  assumed  that  many  of  them  would  be  particularly  eager 
to  atone  for  the  blot  upon  their  ancestry,  or  upon  their  own 
past,  by  uncommon  zeal  for  the  traditions  of  the  fathers. 
It  is  worthy  of  notice  in  this  connection  that  the  attack 
upon  Stephen,  which  came  a  little  later,  and  which  was 
due  to  his  supposed  hostility  to  the  Jewish  law  and  temple, 
was  instigated  not  by  Palestinian  but  by  foreign  Jews. 
It  is  probable,  then,  that  the  reason  for  the  neglect  of  the 
Hellenistic  poor  lay  not  in  any  differences  of  opinion  or  of 
practice,  but  solely  in  the  traditional  attitude  of  native 
Hebrews  toward  their  foreign  brethren. 

It  is  to  the  credit  of  the  apostles  and  the  church  in 
general  that  the  neglect  was  no  sooner  discovered  than 
steps  were  taken  to  correct  it.  The  remedy  proposed  was 
simple  but  effective.  It  was  the  appointment  of  a  board 
or  committee,  which  should  be  responsible  for  the  fair 
distribution  of  all  the  alms  of  the  church.  The  seven 
men  thus  appointed  have  been  commonly  called  deacons 
since  the  second  century,  and  it  has  been  the  custom  to 
regard  them  as  the  first  incumbents  of  that  historic  office. 
But  they  are  not  called  deacons  by  Luke,  or  by  any  other 
New  Testament  writer,  and  there  is  no  sign  that  there 
were  ever  deacons  in  the  church  of  Jerusalem.  Accord- 


78  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

ing  to  Epiphanius,  the  Ebionitic  churches  of  Palestine  in 
his  time  had  only  presbyters  and  archisynagogi.1  These 
Ebionites  were  the  Jewish  Christian  reactionaries,  who 
refused  to  advance  with  the  Catholic  church  in  its  normal 
development.  It  is  therefore  significant  that  there  were 
no  deacons  among  them  in  the  fourth  century.  But  it  is 
to  be  noticed,  also,  that  the  duties  assigned  to  the  Seven 
were  not  identical  with  the  functions  discharged  by  the 
regular  deacons  of  whom  we  hear  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
first  century.  The  former  were  put  in  charge  of  the  alms- 
giving of  the  Jerusalem  church,  while  the  latter  acted 
simply  as  bishops'  assistants. 

If  we  cannot,  then,  regard  these  seven  men  as  deacons, 
are  we  to  suppose  that  they  constituted  only  a  temporary 
committee,2  or  are  we  to  identify  them  with  permanent 
officials  in  the  church  of  Jerusalem  bearing  some  other 
name?  In  the  Book  of  Acts,  apostles  and  elders  are 
frequently  mentioned  as  the  leading  personages  in  the 
mother  church,3  and  it  is  said  in  chap.  xi.  30  that  the 
Antiochian  Christians  sent  their  gifts,  intended  for  the 
brethren  of  Jerusalem,  to  the  "elders."  The  latter 
evidently  had  in  charge  at  that  time  the  work  origi- 
nally entrusted  to  the  Seven.  The  appointment  of  these 
elders  is  nowhere  recorded  by  Luke,  and  it  is  natural 
therefore  to  identify  them  with  the  Seven  and  to  suppose 
that  the  latter  were  in  reality  the  first  presbyters  of  the 
church  of  Jerusalem.4  But  in  the  absence  of  any  specific 
information  upon  the  subject,  and  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
Luke  does  not  call  the  Seven  "elders,"  and  nowhere  hints 
that  they  were  the  same,  it  is  probably  safer  to  conclude 
that  the  men  whose  appointment  he  records  in  Acts  vi. 
served  only  a  temporary  purpose,  and  that  the  duties 

1  Epiphanius,  Haer.  III.  18. 

2  This  opinion  was  held  by  Chrysostom,  and  among  modern  scholars  by 
Vitringa,  Dean  Stanley,  and  others. 

8  Elders  are  mentioned  alone  in  xi.  30,  xxi.  18;  "  Apostles  and  Elders"  in 
xv.  2,  4,  6,  22,  xvi.  4;  "  Apostles  and  elder  brethren  "  (Trpea/Si/re/oot  ddeX^ol)? 
in  xv.  23. 

4  It  is  clear  that  there  cannot  have  been  official  elders  in  the  Church  of 
Jerusalem  at  the  time  the  Seven  were  appointed,  for  otherwise  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  latter  would  have  been  unnecessary. 


PRIMITIVE  JEWISH   CHRISTIANITY  79 

originally  entrusted  to  them  were  ultimately  assumed  by 
the  elders  or  elder  brethren,  who  seem  gradually  to  have 
become  the  leaders  of  the  church  in  its  various  activities. 
But  the  identity  of  the  Seven  with  the  so-called  elders  is 
to  be  questioned,  not  simply  because  of  Luke's  silence  in 
the  matter,  but  also  because  it  is  exceedingly  unlikely 
that  the  elders  mentioned  in  the  Book  of  Acts  were  offi- 
cers of  the  church  in  any  sense ;  or  in  other  words,  it  is 
exceedingly  unlikely  that  they  had  been  appointed  to  take 
charge  of  the  alms  of  the  church,  or  to  perform  any  other 
duties,  religious  or  ecclesiastical.  That  the  older  and 
more  experienced  disciples  should  gradually  assume  the 
leadership  of  the  church  was  entirely  natural,  especially 
after  the  subsidence  of  the  storm  that  broke  at  the  time  of 
Stephen's  execution;  for  the  occupation  of  the  Seven  was 
very  likely  interrupted  by  that  persecution,  and  after  it 
ceased  there  were  probably  few  either  of  the  apostles  or  of 
the  Seven  left  on  the  ground.  And  so  it  is  not  surprising 
that  in  later  chapters  of  the  Book  of  Acts  the  elders  com- 
monly appear,  either  alone  or  in  company  with  the  apostles 
or  with  James,  as  the  leading  figures  in  the  church,  even 
though  they  were  not  the  incumbents  of  any  ecclesiastical 
office.1 

From  which  party  in  the  church  the  seven  men  were 
chosen  we  are  not  told,  but  it  is  altogether  probable  that 
both  parties  were  represented.  At  least  one  of  the  Seven, 
Nicolas  of  Antioch,  was  a  proselyte ; 2  and  it  is  very  likely 
that  Stephen  was  a  Hellenist,  for  the  attack  upon  him 


1  In  my  edition  of  Eusebius'  Ecclesiastical  History  (Bk.  II.  chap.  i.  note), 
I  took  the  position  that  the  "  Seven"  were  the  first  elders  of  the  Church  of 
Jerusalem,  but  I  am  now  convinced  that  the  elders  mentioned  in  various  pas- 
sages in  the  Book  of  Acts  were  not  officers  in  any  sense,  and  consequently  are 
not  to  be  connected  with  the  Seven  in  any  way.    Luke  himself  possibly 
thought  of  the  men  whom  he  calls  elders,  as  he  did  of  the  apostles,  as  regular 
officials  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem,  but  the  facts  hardly  bear  out  the  opinion, 
for  in  Acts  xv.  23,  although  he  speaks  in  the  previous  verse  of  the  "  apostles  and 
elders  "  in  such  a  way  as  to  leave  the  impression  that  he  regards  them  as  offi- 
cers, the  decree  itself  which  he  quotes,  and  the  early  date  of  which  cannot  be 
denied  (see  p.  212,  below),  has  only  "apostles  and  elder  brethren,"  showing 
clearly  their  unofficial  character,  and  throwing  light  back  upon  all  those  pas- 
sages in  which  the  word  "  elder  "  occurs,    See  also  p.  55i,  below. 

2  Acts  vi.  5. 


80  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

was  made  by  foreign  Jews,  who  had  apparently  become 
acquainted  with  his  views  through  association  with  him 
in  one  of  their  synagogues.  That  all  were  of  the  same 
party,  as  assumed  by  some  scholars  on  the  ground  of  their 
Greek  names,1  is  very  unlikely,  for  they  were  entrusted 
with  the  dispensation  of  charity  for  the  entire  church,  not 
for  one  section  of  it  only,  and  the  effort  would  naturally  be 
made  to  avoid  all  cause  of  complaint  in  the  future  by  giving 
both  classes  a  fair  representation  on  the  committee.2 

The  spread  of  Christianity  during  these  early  days 
which  we  have  been  considering,  must  have  been  very 
rapid.  The  interval  between  Christ's  death  and  the 
death  of  Stephen  can  hardly  have  been  more  than  a  couple 
of  years,3  and  yet  the  persecution  which  followed  upon 
the  latter  event  shows  that  there  were  already  many 
Christians  in  Jerusalem.  The  statement  concerning 
the  number  of  the  disciples  in  the  early  chapters  of 
Acts  are  for  the  most  part  very  indefinite,  but  a  few 
specific  figures  are  given.  Thus,  in  Acts  i.  15,  it  is 
said  that  there  were  "about  a  hundred  and  twenty"  gath- 
ered together;  and  that  they  did  not  comprise  all  the  dis- 
ciples is  shown  by  1  Cor.  xv.  6,  where  Paul  says  that 
Jesus  appeared  to  "above  five  hundred  brethren  at  once." 
In  Acts  ii.  41  it  is  said  that  about  three  thousand  per- 
sons were  added  to  them,  and  in  iv.  4,  their  numbers 
are  reported  to  have  reached  five  thousand.  Though,  as 
a  rule,  comparatively  little  reliance  can  be  placed  upon 
such  general  figures,  the  contrast  between  them  and  the 
vague  statements  in  other  passages  seems  to  indicate  that 
they  were  taken  by  Luke  from  his  sources,  and  that  they 
are  not  merely  the  result  of  his  own  idealization  of  the 
early  history.4  These  are  the  only  definite  statements 

1  Palestinian  Jews  frequently  bore  Greek  names,  and  two  of  the  Twelve 
Apostles,  Philip  and  Andrew,  are  known  to  us  only  thus. 

2  Gieseler  (Church  History,  Eng.  Trans.,  Vol.  I.  p.  74)  suggests  that  three 
Hebrews,  three  Hellenists,  and  one  proselyte  were  appointed.    That  such  care 
was  taken  is  possible,  but  hardly  probable.     A  committee  made  up  in  such  a 
way  would  have  a  decidedly  modern  look. 

8  See  below,  p.  172. 

4  Though  the  figures  were  probably  taken  from  the  sources,  it  is  not  at  all 
impossible  that  they  are  something  of  an  exaggeration,  as  held  by  many 


PRIMITIVE   JEWISH    CHRISTIANITY  81 

upon  the  subject  which  we  have ;  and  whether  the  larger 
number  was  intended  to  represent  the  strength  of  the 
Christian  brotherhood  in  the  early  or  in  the  later  part  of 
the  period  with  which  we  are  dealing,  we  have  no  means 
of  knowing ;  for  there  is  for  the  most  part  no  indication 
as  to  the  chronological  order  of  the  various  detached  events 
which  Luke  records.  In  Acts  ii.  47,  it  is  said  that  "the 
Lord  added  to  them  day  by  day  those  that  were  being 
saved";  in  v.  14,  that  "believers  were  the  more  added 
to  the  Lord,  multitudes  both  of  men  and  women"; 
in  vi.  1,  that  the  "number  of  the  disciples  was  multiply- 
ing"; and  in  ix.  31,  that  "the  church  throughout  all 
Judea  and  Galilee  and  Samaria  was  multiplied."  Such 
general  statements  of  course  add  little  to  our  knowledge ; 
but  though  they  probably  originated  with  Luke  himself, 
and  not  with  his  sources,  they  are  certainly  true  to  the 
facts;  for  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  growth  of  the 
little  circle  of  disciples  was  steady  and  rapid,  until  the 
storm  broke  which  resulted  in  driving  so  many  of  them 
from  the  city. 

4.   THE  CONFLICT  WITH  JUDAISM 

There  is  much  in  the  account  of  these  days  contained 
in  the  early  chapters  of  the  Book  of  Acts  that  is  calcu- 
lated to  convey  the  impression  that  the  disciples  passed  a 
large  part  of  their  life  in  the  blaze  of  publicity,  that  they 
were  constantly  before  the  eyes  of  all  the  people,  and  that 
their  fame  was  upon  everybody's  lips.  But  such  an  idea 
is  hardly  in  accord  with  the  actual  facts.  That  they 
spoke  boldly  in  the  name  of  Jesus  there  is  no  reason  to 
doubt,  and  that  they  produced  a  profound  impression  upon 
those  that  heard  them,  and  won  many  converts  to  their 
faith  in  the  Messiah,  cannot  be  questioned.  They  doubt- 
less improved  the  frequent  opportunities  afforded  by  the 
presence  of  Jewish  worshippers  in  the  temple  to  speak  to 

scholars  (cf.  Wendt  in  Meyer's  Commentary,  seventh  edition,  S.  92  sq.).  In- 
deed, though  the  growth  of  the  church  in  Jerusalem  must  have  been  rapid, 
there  is  a  difficulty,  in  the  light  of  the  account  which  we  have  of  their  numer- 
ous meetings  together,  in  supposing  that  the  number  of  those  who  resided  in 
Jerusalem  reached  into  the  thousands,  at  any  rate  during  the  earliest  days. 

G 


82  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

them  of  the  Messiah  Jesus,  and  it  is  altogether  likely 
that  they  proclaimed  him  openly  in  the  public  streets  and 
squares,  or  wherever  they  could  get  a  crowd  together. 
Conscious  that  their  great  duty  was  witness-bearing,  they 
must  have  seized  every  available  occasion  to  bear  testi- 
mony to  him,  whether  in  public  or  in  private.1  But 
Jerusalem  was  a  large  and  busy  city,  and  the  presence  of 
the  disciples  can  hardly  have  made  any  wide  impression, 
at  any  rate  for  some  time.  That  they  should  be  preaching 
a  faith  which  had  been  completely  discredited  by  the  death 
of  their  leader,  and  should  still  be  proclaiming  that  leader 
as  the  Messiah,  must  have  seemed  so  foolish  to  most  of 
those  that  happened  to  know  of  it,  that  they  could  hardly 
regard  them  as  anything  else  than  witless  and  harmless 
fanatics.  The  fact  that  they  never  thought  of  attacking 
or  questioning  the  validity  of  the  Jewish  law,  that  they 
were  not  revolutionists  in  any  sense,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
the  most  devout  observers  of  ancestral  law  and  custom, 
removed  them  from  the  category  of  dangerous  characters 
who  needed  to  be  kept  under  strict  and  constant  surveil- 
lance. Of  course  it  was  not  a  crime  for  them  to  declare 
their  continued  devotion  to  Jesus,  and  that  there  could 
be  any  danger  in  allowing  them  to  do  so  can  hardly  have 
suggested  itself  to  any  one,  at  least  for  some  time.  Only 
when  their  number  had  grown  large,  and  their  influence 
had  come  to  be  somewhat  widely  felt  among  the  common 
people,  did  the  authorities  think  it  worth  while  to  take 
cognizance  of  them.  And  then  it  is  significant  that  it 
was  not  the  Pharisees  who  brought  accusations  against 
them,  as  in  the  case  of  Jesus,  but  the  captain  of  the 
temple  and  the  priests  and  the  Sadducees,2  or,  in  other 
words,  the  political  rather  than  the  religious  leaders  of  the 
Jews. 

1  The  utterances  of  Peter  and  others  recorded  in  Acts  iii.  sq.  are  not  to  be 
regarded  as  formal  discourses  delivered  on  particular  occasions,  but  rather  as 
mere  examples  of  the  kind  of  testimony  borne  by  him  and  by  his  fellows  on 
all  occasions.    That  they  represent  so  accurately  the  views  of  the  early  dis- 
ciples is  due,  not  to  the  fact  that  they  are  stenographic  reports  of  particular 
speeches,  but  that  they  are  taken  from  primitive  Jewish  Christian  documents, 
dating,  doubtless,  from  a  very  early  period. 

2  Acts  iv.  1,  v.  17. 


PRIMITIVE   JEWISH   CHRISTIANITY  83 

It  has  been  asserted  by  many  scholars  that  it  is  incon- 
ceivable that  the  Christians  should  have  been  attacked  by 
the  Sadducees,  and  that  the  Pharisees,  the  enemies  of 
Christ,  should  not  have  been  the  ringleaders.  But  the 
assertion  is  based  upon  a  misconception  of  the  principles 
of  the  early  disciples.  There  was  no  reason  why  the 
Pharisees  should  proceed  against  such  strict  and  consis- 
tent Jews  as  they  were.  They  might  well  think  that 
the  death  of  Jesus  had  taken  from  the  movement  all 
Messianic  significance,  and  might  well  be  content  to  leave 
such  pious  Israelites  alone,  as  entirely  harmless  from  a 
religious  point  of  view.  When  they  were  arrested,  it  was 
apparently  not  as  teachers  of  another  religion,  or  as  ene- 
mies of  the  law,  but  simply  as  disturbers  of  the  public 
peace,  who  were  gathering  crowds  about  them  without 
license  and  were  threatening  a  tumult  of  serious  propor- 
tions. But  though  Luke  is  thus  undoubtedly  correct  in 
stating  that  the  Sadducees  and  not  the  Pharisees  were 
responsible  for  the  attack  upon  the  Christians  that  took 
place  at  this  time,  the  reason  which  he  gives  for  their 
hostility  betrays  a  misapprehension  of  their  true  character. 
The  Sadducees  were  not  bigoted  theologians,  who  desired 
to  persecute  and  stop  the  mouths  of  all  that  differed  with 
them.  It  was  not  because  the  disciples  preached  the  resur- 
rection from  the  dead  that  they  proceeded  against  them, 
but  because  they  were  creating  too  much  of  an  excitement 
in  the  city,  and  needed  to  have  their  freedom  of  speech 
somewhat  curtailed.1  The  nature  of  the  punishment  in- 
flicted by  the  authorities  upon  Peter  and  John 2  goes  to 
confirm  the  general  conclusion  that  has  been  drawn.  Sur- 
prise has  been  expressed  that  when  they  had  been  arrested, 
they  should  have  been  released  again  so  soon.  But  if  the 
object  was  simpty  to  put  some  restraint  upon  their  free- 

1  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  agency  of  the  Sadducees  in  the  arrest 
of  the  early  Christians  was  recorded  in  the  sources  which  the  author  of  the 
Acts  used,  and  that  he  added  the  motive  which  seemed  to  him  alone  to  explain 
their  course.    There  is  no  discoverable  reason  otherwise  why  he  should  have 
departed  from  the  tradition  as  to  the  hostility  of  the  Pharisees  against  Jesus, 
which  he  follows  in  his  Gospel,  and  should  have  made  the  Sadducees  rather 
than  the  Pharisees  the  instigators  of  the  attack. 

2  Actsiv.  3sq.,  v.  18  sq. 


84  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

dom  of  speech  and  action,  and  thus  avoid  the  tumults  and 
disturbances  which  their  public  preaching  was  causing, 
the  course  which  the  authorities  are  represented  to  have 
taken  was  entirely  natural.1 

The  time  at  which  the  first  arrests  were  made  we  do  not 
know,  but  they  must  not  be  brought  into  any  connection 
with  the  outbreak  that  occurred  in  connection  with  Stephen, 
for  that  had  grounds  of  an  entirely  different  character. 
We  shall  probably  not  go  far  astray,  if  we  assume  that 
the  interference  of  the  authorities,  referred  to  in  Acts  iv. 
and  v.,  began  in  the  earlier  rather  than  in  the  latter  part 
of  the  period  that  elapsed  between  Pentecost  and  the 
execution  of  Stephen,  and  that  that  interference  actually 
accomplished  the  end  sought,  and  that  the  disciples  thence- 
forth refrained  from  creating  public  disturbances,  and 

1  The  part  played  by  Gamaliel  in  this  connection,  as  reported  in  Acts  v. 
34  sq.,  has  given  rise  to  much  discussion.  The  whole  account  has  been 
declared  by  many  scholars,  for  instance  by  Baur,  Zeller,  and  Overbeck, 
entirely  unhistorical,  both  because  of  the  attitude  which  Gamaliel  is  repre- 
sented as  taking  and  of  the  anachronism  in  his  reported  speech.  But  there  is 
no  reason,  in  the  nature  of  things,  why  the  great  Rabbi  Gamaliel  may  not  have 
counselled  moderation  in  dealing  with  the  disciples.  His  attitude,  as  it  appears 
in  the  passage  in  question,  does  not  necessarily  imply  any  secret  leaning 
toward  Christianity  or  any  friendliness  for  the  Christians.  It  is  simply  the 
attitude  of  a  wise  and  cool-headed  man  who  believes  that  control  will  accom- 
plish the  desired  purpose  better  than  repression.  That  there  is  nothing  incredi- 
ble in  the  report  that  Gamaliel,  or  any  other  member  of  the  Sanhedrim,  held 
such  an  attitude,  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  the  disciples  were  actually  treated 
with  just  such  moderation  for  a  long  time. 

But  the  fact  must  be  recognized  that  though  the  general  statement  as  to 
Gamaliel's  position  may  be  quite  correct,  the  report  of  his  speech  cannot  be 
regarded  as  entirely  accurate.  Josephus  (Ant.  xx.  5, 1)  gives  an  account  of  an 
insurgent  leader  named  Theudas,  who,  in  the  reign  of  Claudius,  a  dozen  years 
or  more  after  the  time  to  which  Luke  is  referring,  announced  himself  as  a 
prophet  and  secured  a  great  many  followers,  and  was  finally  conquered  and 
slain  by  the  procurator  Cuspius  Fadus.  The  identity  of  this  man  with  the 
Theudas  mentioned  in  Acts  has  been  denied  by  many  scholars  in  the  interest 
of  Luke's  account  (for  instance  by  Wieseler :  Chronologic  des  apost.  Zeitalters, 
S.  138;  Schaff:  History  of  the  Christian  Church,  Vol.  I.  p.  732;  and  many 
commentators  on  Acts),  but  the  descriptions  in  the  two  cases  agree  so  closely 
that  it  is  very  difficult  to  believe  that  they  refer  to  different  men,  especially 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  name  Theudas  was  far  from  common.  The  accu- 
racy of  Josephus'  chronology  at  this  point  cannot  be  doubted,  and  it  would 
seem  therefore  that  the  author  of  the  Acts,  unconscious  of  the  anachronism 
involved,  must  have  put  into  Gamaliel's  mouth  words  which  he  did  not  actu- 
ally utter.  SeeNeander:  PJanzunri  imd  Leitvng  der  christlichfn  Kirche 
durch  die  Apostel,  5te  Auflage,  S.  57;  Wendt:  I.e.  S.  146;  and  Schiirer: 
Gesehichte  des  judischen  Volkes,  I.  S,  473,  where  the  literature  is  given  with 
considerable  fulness. 


PRIMITIVE  JEWISH   CHRISTIANITY  85 

carried  on  their  evangelistic  work  more  quietly  than  they 
had  been  inclined  to  do  at  first.1 

The  arrest  of  Stephen  at  the  instigation  of  certain  for- 
eign Jews,  who  were  exceedingly  zealous  for  ancestral  law 
and  custom,2  is  a  fact  of  great  significance  and  demands 
careful  examination,  all  the  more  careful  because  it  has 
been  widely  misinterpreted.  The  accusations  brought 
against  Stephen  doubtless  had  some  basis  in  fact,  but  he 
is  certainly  misrepresented  by  the  "false  witnesses"  whom 
Luke  quotes  in  vs.  13,  for  had  he  "ceased  not  to  speak 
blasphemous  words  against  this  holy  place  and  the  law," 
he  would  have  incurred  the  disapprobation  not  of  the 
unconverted  Jews  alone,  but  of  his  Christian  brethren 
as  well.  The  rigor  with  which  they  observed  the  law  not 
only  in  the  beginning,  but  for  years  afterward,  and  the 
bitterness  and  persistency  with  which  many  of  them  later 
opposed  the  tendency  to  regard  it  as  abrogated,  or  to 
neglect  its  observance,  make  it  certain  that,  had  Stephen 
done  as  he  was  said  to  have  done  by  his  accusers,  even 
though  he  had  not  preached,  as  Paul  later  did,  a  Gentile 
Christianity,  a  serious  and  bitter  conflict  must  have  been 
precipitated  in  the  church  of  Jerusalem.  But  so  far  as  our 
sources  enable  us  to  judge,  Stephen  continued  to  stand 
in  unquestioned  repute  and  to  enjoy  the  universal  esteem 
of  his  brethren.  It  is  not  impossible  that  a  freer  tendency 
than  that  originally  represented  by  Peter  and  his  associates 
existed  within  the  church  of  Jerusalem  at  this  time,  and 
that  it  made  itself  felt  especially  among  the  converts  from 
the  Hellenists.  But  the  tendency  can  have  been  neither 
very  marked  nor  very  extreme,  or  it  would  certainly  have 
split  the  infant  church.  It  is  more  probable,  under  the 
circumstances,  that  opposition  to  Christianity  on  the  part 
of  the  stricter  spirits  among  the  Hellenists  of  Jerusalem 
was  aroused  not  by  attacks  made  by  the  Christians  upon 
the  Jewish  law,  or  by  a  manifest  tendency  among  them 

1  In  confirmation  of  this  supposition  it  may  be  observed  that  the  arrest  of 
Stephen  was  not  caused  by  the  Sadducees,  but  by  the  religious  zealots,  and 
hence  it  would  seem  that  the  action  of  the  disciples  had  ceased  to  incur  the 
hostility  of  the  civic  authorities. 

*  Acts  vi.  9  sq. 


86  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

to  neglect  its  observance,  but  by  such  an  emphasis  upon 
the  spiritual  character  of  the  future  Messianic  kingdom 
as  led  to  a  seeming  neglect  of  its  physical  and  political 
aspects,  and  appeared  to  many  to  threaten  the  permanent 
stability  of  Jewish  law  and  custom.  It  may  well  be  that 
in  his  proclamation  of  the  impending  judgment  and  of 
the  return  of  Jesus  to  establish  the  Messianic  kingdom, 
Stephen,  as  well  as  others,  repeated  the  prophecies  of 
Christ  in  which  the  destruction  of  the  temple  and  of  the 
city  was  foretold,  prophecies  which  might  easily  be  inter- 
preted as  implying  that  the  Jewish  law  had  only  relative 
and  temporary  validity.  But  there  is  no  sign  that  Stephen 
thus  interpreted  them,  and  there  is  no  sign  that  he  drew 
from  them  conclusions  affecting  in  any  way  the  binding 
character  of  the  law,  or  thought  of  suggesting,  or  even 
countenancing,  its  neglect.  To  say  that  Jesus  the  Mes- 
siah, as  a  judgment  upon  an  unbelieving  people,  will 
destroy  their  temple  and  city,  does  not  necessarily  mean 
that  he  will  change  the  customs  that  God  has  delivered 
unto  them  through  Moses,  and  we  may  be  sure  that  Stephen 
cannot  have  taught  thus  and  retained  the  confidence  of 
the  church. 

The  address  which  Stephen  is  reported  to  have  made 
goes  to  confirm  the  conclusion  that  has  been  drawn.  It 
is  a  mistake  to  interpret  that  address  as  implying  a  belief 
on  the  part  of  the  speaker  in  either  the  immediate  or 
ultimate  abrogation  of  law  and  temple  worship;  or  a 
tendency  on  his  part  to  regard  them  as  of  only  relative 
and  temporary  worth.  The  address  was  not  directed,  as  is 
frequently  said,  against  the  Jews'  valuation  of  the  Holy 
Land,  of  the  temple,  and  of  the  law.  It  was  not  the 
speaker's  purpose  to  assert  over  against  such  valuation  that 
God  may  be  worshipped  everywhere  and  in  all  ways,  for 
the  sacredness  of  the  promised  land  is  repeatedly  empha- 
sized, and  the  sojourn  of  Israel  in  Egypt  and  in  Babylon 
is  regarded  as  a  calamity  because  it  means  separation  from 
it.  Nor  is  there  any  sign  of  an  inclination  to  treat  the 
law  slightingly.  On  the  contrary,  the  law  is  called  "liv- 
ing oracles  "  in  vs.  38,  and  its  divine  character  is  empha- 


PRIMITIVE   JEWISH    CHRISTIANITY  87 

sized  by  its  connection  with  angels  in  vss.  38  and  53, l  and 
Moses  himself  is  accorded  the  greatest  possible  honor.  In 
fact,  one  of  the  marked  characteristics  of  the  address  is  the 
emphasis  which  is  put  upon  the  sacredness  both  of  the 
promised  land  and  of  the  Mosaic  law.  The  speech  might 
more  easily  be  interpreted  as  an  evidence  of  Stephen's 
profound  respect  for  and  rigid  adherence  to  those  things 
which  his  countrymen  regarded  as  holy,  than  as  evidence 
of  his  undervaluation  of  them. 

The  theme  of  the  address  is  to  be  found  not  in  vss. 
48-50,  but  in  vss.  51-53.  Stephen's  design  is  to  show 
that  not  he  and  his  fellow-Christians,  but  his  accusers 
and  the  unconverted  Jews  in  general  are  the  real  crimi- 
nals and  violators  of  God's  law.  To  bring  the  matter 
out  in  the  clearest  light,  he  begins  with  the  call  of 
Abraham  and  the  divine  promise  that  Abraham's  de- 
scendants should  serve  God  in  the  land  to  which  God 
had  called  him.  In  the  light  of  that  promise  the  residence 
of  the  children  of  Israel  in  Egypt,  which  he  recounts  at 
considerable  length,  appears  simply  as  a  temporary  sojourn. 
They  are  only  strangers  in  Egypt,  and  their  true  fatherland 
is  Canaan.  Stephen  is  careful  to  refer  in  passing  to  the 
burial  of  Jacob  and  of  the  patriarchs  in  Shechem,  thus 
emphasizing  the  fact  that  Canaan  and  not  Egypt  is  their 
home  and  the  home  of  their  descendants.  But  in  spite  of 
the  fact  that,  according  to  God's  announced  purpose,  the 
Israelites  were  only  strangers  and  sojourners  in  Egypt, 
when  Moses,  who  had  enjoyed  the  most  eminent  favors 
from  the  Egyptian  court,  and  who  had  consequently  the 
best  of  reasons  to  remain  in  the  land  of  his  adoption,  vol- 
untarily relinquished  all  his  honors  in  order  to  deliver  his 
brethren  from  their  bondage,  they  refused  to  go,  prefer- 
ring to  remain  where  they  were  rather  than  to  seek  the 
land  which  God  had  appointed  them  as  the  place  in  which 

1  It  is  true  that  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (ii.  2) ,  the  agency  of  the 
angels  in  the  giving  of  the  law  is  regarded  as  a  mark  of  its  inferiority  as  com- 
pared with  the  Gospel  which  was  given  through  Clmst.  But  in  Stephen's 
address  no  such  idea  appears.  It  was  a  common  belief  among  the  Jews  that 
the  law  had  been  promulgated  by  the  mediation  of  angels,  and  Stephen  refers 
to  the  fact  for  the  purpose  of  magnifying  not  minimizing  the  dignity  of  the  law. 


88  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

to  serve  him.  This  is  the  first  instance  of  the  Israelites 
unbelief  and  opposition  to  the  will  of  God  to  which 
Stephen  refers,  but  the  instances  multiply  as  the  address 
proceeds.  He  mentions  them  evidently  with  a  double 
purpose:  on  the  one  hand,  to  show  that  at  all  stages  of 
their  history  the  Israelites  had  withstood  and  opposed  the 
purposes  of  God,  even  refusing  to  receive  and  obey  the 
"  living  oracles  "  which  he  gave  them  through  the  agency 
of  Moses ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  because  their  conduct 
furnishes  a  parallel  to  the  treatment  accorded  Jesus  by 
those  whom  he  is  addressing.  He  calls  particular  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that  the  very  Moses  who  had  been  rejected 
by  his  brethren,  was  afterward  commissioned  and  sent  by 
God  to  be  their  ruler  and  deliverer,  and  that  this  same 
Moses  predicted  that  God  would  raise  up  another  prophet 
like  unto  himself,  a  prediction  which  was  fulfilled  in  the 
person  of  Jesus  the  righteous  one,  whose  coming  the 
prophets  announced  beforehand  and  were  slain  for  an- 
nouncing. 

Moreover,  the  Israelites'  idolatry  and  disregard  of 
God's  will  continued,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  they  had 
the  tabernacle  of  the  testimony,  which  was  erected  at 
God's  express  command.  The  presence  of  that  tabernacle 
in  their  midst  did  riot  prevent  them  from  worshipping 
false  gods.  Indeed,  that  worship  was  carried  so  far  that 
God  could  declare  that  they  had  in  reality  offered  him  no 
sacrifices  during  the  forty  years  in  the  wilderness.  And 
so  the  building  of  the  temple,  which  followed  the  taber- 
nacle, did  not  insure  the  true  worship  of  God  on  the  part 
of  his  people.  For  God's  dwelling-place  is  not  mere 
hand-made  houses.  Tabernacle  and  temple  may  be  built, 
but  the  hearts  of  the  people  may  be  far  from  God,  and  if 
they  are,  he  whose  throne  is  heaven  and  whose  footstool 
is  the  earth  must  withdraw  his  presence  and  his  favor  from 
them.  Taken  by  themselves,  vss.  48-50  might  be  regarded 
as  a  general  statement  that  God  is  to  be  worshipped 
only  in  spirit  and  not  in  hand-made  temples,  and  that 
consequently  the  Jewish  temple  worship  is  unnecessary, 
or  even  harmful,  and  may  or  should  be  done  away.  But 


UNiVER 

PRIMITIVE  JEWISH   CHRISTIANITY  89 


read  in  the  light  of  the  context  in  which  the  words  occur, 
they  cannot  mean  that  such  worship  is  unnecessary,  but 
only  that  mere  external  temple  worship  is  not  enough; 
that  the  temple  may  stand  and  worshippers  gather  therein, 
and  yet  God  himself  be  absent,  because  the  hearts  of  the 
worshippers  are  turned  toward  other  gods,  and  the  sacri- 
fices which  they  offer  him  are  no  sacrifices.  In  giving 
utterance  to  such  a  truth,  Stephen  was  simply  reiterating 
a  principle  repeatedly  emphasized  by  the  prophets,  and 
not  entirely  forgotten  among  the  Jews  in  his  own  day; 
a  principle,  moreover,  with  which  all  of  his  Christian 
brethren  must  have  been  in  heartiest  accord.  To  read 
more  than  this  into  vss.  48-50  is  to  overlook  the  fact, 
which  cannot  have  escaped  Stephen  himself  and  his  hearers, 
that  Solomon  at  the  very  time  of  the  erection  of  the  temple 
gave  distinct  expression  to  the  same  thought,1  and  is  to 
introduce  an  idea  entirely  foreign  both  to  the  body  of  the 
address  and  to  its  conclusion. 

Stephen's  speech  was  thus  not  a  direct  defence  of  him- 
self against  the  accusations  brought  by  his  opponents, 
but  a  warning,  addressed  to  his  .accusers  and  judges, 
that  the  possession  of  the  temple  and  the  law,  as  it 
had  not  in  the  past,  so  would  not  now  insure  the  pres- 
ence of  God  and  the  acceptance  of  the  people  by  him. 
Only  they  who  cease  resisting  his  Spirit,  and  receive 
the  righteous  one  whom  he  has  sent,  are  truly  wor- 
shipping and  serving  God.  It  is  clear,  in  the  light  of 
all  that  has  been  said,  that  to  call  Stephen  a  forerunner 
of  Paul,  and  to  think  of  him  as  anticipating  in  any  way 
Paul's  treatment  of  the  Jewish  law  and  his  assertion  of 
a  free  Gentile  Christianity,  is  to  misunderstand  him. 
He  neither  questioned  the  continued  validity  of  the 
Jewish  law  nor  suggested  in  any  way  the  call  of  the 
Gentiles.2 

1  1  Kings  viii.  27  ;  2  Chron.  ii.  6,  and  vi.  18. 

2  It  has  been  maintained  by  many  that  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Acts  him- 
self composed  the  speech  with  which  we  have  been  dealing,  and  put  it  into  the 
mouth  of  Stephen.     But  if  our  interpretation  of  the  address  be  correct,  such 
an  assumption  is  impossible.    The  author  of  the  Acts  cannot  have  invented 
and  ascribed  to  Stephen,  who  was  accused  of  blaspheming  the  law  and  the 


90  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

The  closing  sentences  of  Stephen's  speech  were  not  cal- 
culated to  conciliate  his  hearers.  His  bold  charac  terization 
of  his  accusers  and  judges  as  stiff-necked  and  uncircum- 
cised  in  heart  and  ears,  his  bitter  denunciation  of  them  for 
resisting  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  for  breaking  his  laws,  and 
his  stinging  arraignment  of  them  as  betrayers  and  murder- 
ers of  the  righteous  one  whom  God  had  sent,  and  whom  the 
prophets  had  foretold,  must  have  enraged  them  beyond 
measure,  and  we  are  not  surprised  to  learn  that  they 
"gnashed  on  him  with  their  teeth."  But  there  was  noth- 
ing in  his  address  to  substantiate  the  charge  of  blasphemy 
brought  against  him,  and  to  justify  his  condemnation. 
That  justification,  however,  he  supplied  in  the  words 
which  he  is  reported  to  have  uttered  in  vs.  56  ("Behold 
I  see  the  heavens  opened,  and  the  Son  of  Man  standing 
on  the  right  hand  of  God  "),  and  the  result  was,  as  might 
have  been  expected,  his  conviction  and  execution.  Blas- 
phemy, according  to  Jewish  law,  whether  against  Jehovah 
or  against  his  law,  was  punishable  by  death,1  and  as 
Stephen  was  formally  accused  and  brought  to  trial  before 
the  Sanhedrim,  it  is  probable  that  he  was  formally  con- 
demned by  that  body,  and  that  his  death  was  not  the 
result  of  a  mere  tumult,  as  the  account  of  Luke  might 
seem  to  imply.  This  probability  is  strengthened  by  the 
fact  that  his  death  was  by  the  legal  mode  prescribed  for 
the  crime  of  blasphemy,  and  that  the  stoning  was  done 
not  by  the  crowd  in  general,  but  by  Stephen's  accusers  in 
the  orderly  Jewish  way.2  The  Jews,  it  is  true,  did  not 
possess,  under  the  Roman  procurators,  the  right  to  inflict 
capital  punishment,3  but  whether  in  the  present  instance 
the  condemnation  was  confirmed  by  the  Roman  authorities, 
or  whether  the  execution  took  place  illegally  without 

temple,  a  speech  in  which  there  is  no  hint  of  the  abrogation  of  the  ceremonial 
law  or  of  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles.  Luke  undoubtedly  got  the  substance  of 
the  discourse  from  an  early  source,  and  reproduced  it  with  approximate 
accuracy. 

1  Lev.  xxiv.  6 ;  Deut.  xiii.  6-10. 

2  Acts  vii.  58;  cf.  Deut.  xvii.  7. 

8  Upon  the  powers  of  the  Sanhedrim  during  the  period  when  Judea  was 
governed  by  Roman  procurators,  see  Schurer,  II.  S.  160  sq.  (Eng.  Trans.,  Div.  II. 
Vol.  I.  p.  187). 


PRIMITIVE   JEWISH   CHRISTIANITY  91 

Roman  sanction,  as  happened  later  in  the  case  of  James,1 
we  are  not  informed.  Either  supposition  is  credible ;  for 
during  the  closing  years  of  his  official  career  in  Judea, 
Pilate  was  in  such  bad  odor  with  the  Jews,  and  had  so 
much  to  do  to  retain  his  position,  that  he  may  well  have 
refrained  from  calling  them  to  account  for  their  illegal 
action  in  this  particular  case.  But  it  is  more  probable 
that  the  Sanhedrim  secured  at  least  some  kind  of  sanction 
from  the  authorities  before  proceeding  to  the  execution, 
for  it  is  difficult  otherwise  to  explain  the  persecution 
which  they  immediately  instituted  against  the  Christians, 
and  the  failure  of  the  latter  to  defend  themselves  against 
their  persecutors  by  complaining  of  their  violation  of 
Roman  law. 

The  execution  of  Stephen,  according  to  the  author  of 
the  Acts,  was  the  signal  for  the  outbreak  of  a  general 
attack  upon  the  disciples.  Such  an  attack  was  entirely 
natural  under  the  circumstances.  There  is  no  reason  to 
suppose  that  the  teachings  and  practices  of  Stephen  dif- 
fered in  any  way  from  those  of  his  fellow-Christians  and 
that  his  arrest  was  due  to  the  fact  that  he  was  more  radical 
than  they.  It  is  probable  that  the  hostility  of  the  stricter 
Hellenistic  Jews  fell  first  upon  him  simply  because  he 
had  first  drawn  their  attention  to  the  new  faith.  The 
Hellenists  in  general  very  likely  knew  little  about  Chris- 
tianity, —  an  obscure  movement  which  had  arisen  in  Gali- 
lee, and  had  excited  little  public  attention  in  Jerusalem,  — 
until  it  began  to  spread  widely  among  their  own  number, 
and  to  secure  the  adherence  of  men  of  influence  and  repute, 
such  as  Stephen  undoubtedly  was.  In  the  discussions 
which  naturally  ensued,  and  which  were  perhaps  carried 
on  in  the  synagogues,  they  may  have  learned  for  the  first 
time  of  the  startling  and  ominous  prophecies  of  Jesus. 
That  many  of  them  should  take  alarm  at  the  consequences 
which  seemed  to  be  involved  in  such  teachings  was  inevi- 
table. Their  hostility,  once  aroused,  would  fall  not  upon 
Stephen  alone,  but  upon  all  that  professed  the  new  faith. 
The  attack  upon  him  would  be  but  the  beginning  of  a 

1  See  below,  p.  559  sq. 


92  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

general  attack  upon  the  whole  sect.  He  was  arrested  at 
the  instance  of  his  fellow-Hellenists  and  brought  before 
the  Sanhedrim,  not  as  a  disturber  of  the  public  peace,  as 
Peter  and  John  had  been,  but  as  an  enemy  of  God  and 
of  his  law,  and  though  his  address  did  not  substanti- 
ate the  charge,  it  was  not  calculated  to  quiet  the  suspicions 
aroused  against  him  and  his  fellows ;  and  when  he  gave 
public  utterance  finally  to  a  distinctly  blasphemous  state- 
ment, it  must  have  become  clear  to  all  that  heard  him, 
that  belief  in  the  Messiahship  of  the  revolutionary  teacher 
Jesus,  who  had  himself  been  condemned  for  blasphemy, 
even  though  it  might  not  yet  have  led  his  followers  in 
general  into  any  overt  breaches  of  the  law,  was  unsettling 
and  anarchical  in  its  effects.  That  the  religious  leaders, 
who  were  concerned,  above  all,  in  the  strict  maintenance 
of  ancestral  law  and  custom,  should  take  alarm  and  deter- 
mine to  crush  out  this  growing  heresy,  which  had  at  first 
appeared  so  harmless  and  insignificant,  was  inevitable. 

The  trouble  begun  by  the  attack  upon  Stephen  brought 
Christianity  for  the  first  time  into  distinct  and  open  con- 
flict with  Judaism.  Hitherto  the  disciples  had  been  Jews, 
and  nothing  more;  now  they  were  denounced  by  their 
brethren  as  heretics,  and  thus  their  independent  exis- 
tence was  clearly  recognized.  Though  they  were  still  as 
strict  and  conscientious  as  ever  in  their  observance  of  the 
law,  they  now  began  to  be  looked  upon  in  Jerusalem  as 
an  heretical  sect,  and  the  first  step  was  thus  taken  toward 
their  ultimate  separation  from  the  national  body  corporate. 
For  some  time  they  seem  to  have  been  the  objects  of  bitter 
and  unrelenting  hostility  on  the  part  of  the  religious  leaders 
of  the  people,  and  their  position  in  Jerusalem  was  exceed- 
ingly uncomfortable  and  dangerous,  so  that  they  found  it 
necessary  either  to  go  into  retirement  or  to  leave  the  city 
altogether.1 

How  long  the  persecution  continued  we  do  not  know. 
Three  years  after  the  death  of  Stephen,  Peter  and  James, 

1  The  notion  that  the  apostles  stood  by  Jerusalem  after  the  flight  of  all 
their  brethren,  rests  upon  a  misapprehension  as  to  their  position  and  func- 
tions, which  is  characteristic  of  the  author  of  the  Acts  as  well  as  of  the  age  in 
which  he  lived.  See  p.  46,  above. 


£&IMITIVE  JEWISH  CHRISTIANITY  93 

the  brother  of  the  Lord,  were  in  the  city,  as  we  learn 
from  Gal.  i.  18  sq.,  and  their  presence  implies  the  pres- 
ence of  other  Christians  as  well;  though  whether  they 
were  obliged  still  to  conceal  themselves  from  the  eyes 
of  the  authorities,  we  cannot  say.1  But  whatever  the 
position  of  the  disciples  of  Jerusalem  at  that  time,  they 
were  sufficiently  numerous  and  well  known  a  few  years 
later  to  afford  Herod  Agrippa  I.  an  opportunity,  which  he 
thought  it  worth  his  while  to  improve,  of  vindicating 
his  devotion  to  the  Jewish  law,  and  of  currying  favor 
with  the  Pharisaic  party,  by  executing  one  of  the  leaders 
of  the  Christians  and  by  imprisoning  another.2  The  fact 
that  this  attack  was  made  the  subject  of  special  record  in 
Luke's  sources  goes  to  show  that  it  was  exceptional,  and 
that  it  formed  a  contrast  to  the  general  situation  during 
this  period.  In  fact,  it  is  altogether  probable  that  in  the 
years  immediately  preceding  Herod's  accession,  and  dur- 
ing the  greater  part  of  his  reign,  the  Christians  were  left 
unmolested  by  the  authorities,  and  that  after  his  death 
they  enjoyed  peace  under  the  government  of  the  Roman 
procurators,  and  were  permitted  to  grow  without  serious 
interference  until  the  troublous  days  that  ushered  in  the 
Jewish  war. 

5.   THE  WIDENING  FIELD 

The  persecution  which  began  with  the  execution  of 
Stephen  became  the  occasion  of  a  vigorous  missionary 
campaign,  and  thus  resulted  in  the  rapid  and  wide  spread 
of  Christianity.  They  that  were  scattered  abroad,  Luke 
tells  us,  went  about  preaching  the  Word  in  Judea  and 
Samaria,  and  even  as  far  away  as  Phoenicia,  Cyprus,  and 
Antioch.  It  was  perhaps  at  this  time,  also,  that  the  Gos- 
pel reached  Lydia  and  Joppa,  where  Peter  found  disciples 
some  time  later.3  This  was  not  the  beginning  of  mission- 
ary work  outside  of  Jerusalem.  The  Gospel  had  been 
already  carried  at  least  to  Damascus,  and  there  can  be 
little  doubt  that  the  fugitive  disciples  found  believers  to 

1  Upon  the  account  in  Acts  ix.  26  sq.,  see  p.  165,  below. 

2  James  the  son  of  Zebedee  was  executed,  and  Peter  imprisoned  (Acts  xii.), 
•  Acts  ix.  32,  36  sq. 


94  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

welcome  them  in  many  quarters.  But  Luke  is  neverthe- 
less undoubtedly  correct  in  representing  the  persecution 
as  constituting  an  epoch  in  the  history  of  missionary 
effort.  For  these  Christians  of  Jerusalem,  who  had  for  so 
long  enjoyed  such  intimate  fellowship  and  communion 
with  one  another,  who  had  together  witnessed  so  many 
manifestations  of  the  presence  and  power  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  who  had  so  fully  realized  in  their  common  life 
the  ideal  of  the  life  within  the  kingdom  to  which  they 
were  constantly  looking  forward,  could  not  fail  to  make 
their  influence  felt  wherever  they  went,  and  to  give  a 
mighty  impulse  to  the  spread  of  the  Gospel.  We  are  not 
to  think  of  them  as  becoming  travelling  evangelists,  and 
spending  all  their  time  in  going  from  place  to  place 
preaching  the  Gospel.  They  had  their  daily  bread  to 
earn,  and  they  doubtless  settled  down  quietly  among 
their  own  countrymen  in  this  and  that  place,  and  lived 
the  life  of  faithful,  scrupulous  Jews,  just  as  they  had  done 
in  Jerusalem,  and  just  as  their  neighbors  were  doing. 
But  at  the  same  time  they  must  have  retained  the  ideal  of 
the  Christian  life  which  they  had  seen  realized  in  Jerusa- 
lem, and  the  little  circles  in  which  they  gathered  with 
others  of  like  mind,  and  with  those  whom  they  succeeded 
in  winning  to  their  faith,  could  not  fail  to  take  on  the 
character  of  the  circle  to  which  they  had  there  belonged ; 
and  thus  at  an  early  day  among  the  Jewish  population  of 
many  cities,  towns,  and  villages  within  and  without  Pal- 
estine, the  same  kind  of  Christian  brotherhood  was  realized 
that  had  existed  from  the  beginning  in  Jerusalem.  The 
flight  of  the  disciples  therefore  did  not  mean  merely 
the  spread  of  a  knowledge  of  the  Gospel,  it  meant  also 
the  formation  of  little  companies  of  Christian  brethren, 
€KK\r)(Tiai,  wherever  they  made  their  homes. 

Of  the  missionary  work  of  the  disciples  of  Jerusalem, 
Luke  gives  us  some  examples  in  the  eighth  and  following 
chapters,  arranging  them  in  such  a  way  as  to  lead  up 
gradually  to  the  work  of  Paul,  to  which  he  devotes  more 
than  half  his  book,  and  in  which  his  interest  evidently 
chiefly  centres.  With  the  seventh  chapter  he  concludes 


PRIMITIVE  JEWISH   CHRISTIANITY  95 

the  record  of  what  he  regards  as  the  first  of  the  three 
stages  of  the  programme  mapped  out  in  i.  8:  "Ye  shall 
be  my  witnesses,  both  in  Jerusalem  and  in  all  Judea 
and  Samaria,  and  unto  the  uttermost  part  of  the  earth." 
The  history  of  evangelistic  work  in  Jerusalem,  of  the 
spread  of  Christianity  and  the  growth  of  the  church  there, 
he  does  not  refer  to  again.  The  significance  of  Jerusalem 
in  his  narrative,  from  this  point  on,  lies  in  its  relation  to 
other  churches.  It  is  henceforth  not  the  whole  Christian 
church,  but  only  the  mother  church.  The  field  of  opera- 
tion becomes  an  ever-widening  territory,  which  acknowl- 
edges Jerusalem,  to  be  sure,  as  its  capital  and  centre,  but 
which  increasingly  absorbs  the  interest  and  attention  of 
the  narrator,  until  Jerusalem  itself  and  the  fortunes  of  the 
church  there  are  finally  forgotten.  Thus  the  execution 
of  Stephen,  with  the  persecution  and  the  scattering  of  the 
disciples  that  ensued,  marks  a  distinct  division  in  the 
narrative  of  Luke  and  brings  the  first  section  of  his  history 
to  a  close. 

The  second  section,  which  contains  the  record  of  the 
second  stage  of  witness-bearing,  opens  with  an  account  of 
the  preaching  of  Philip,  one  of  the  Seven,  in  Samaria.1 
The  Samaritans  were  a  heterogeneous  people  of  mixed 
Jewish  and  heathen  blood,  but  their  religion  was  genu- 
inely Israelitish,  though  representing  a  more  primitive 
stage  of  development  than  the  religion  of  the  Jews  proper. 
They  worshipped  Jehovah,  practised  circumcision,  ob- 
served the  Sabbath  and  all  the  Jewish  feast  days,  but  their 
holy  city  was  Gerizim  instead  of  Jerusalem,  and  they 
rejected  all  the  Scripture  canon  except  the  Pentateuch. 
They  were  commonly  hated  and  despised  by  their  Jewish 
neighbors,  but  they  were  not  put  on  a  level  with  the 
heathen.  Their  membership  in  the  family  of  Israel, 
though  not  certain  in  each  individual  case,  was  distinctly 
recognized  as  possible,  and  the  rabbinic  regulations  re- 
specting the  treatment  to  be  accorded  them  by  orthodox 

1  On  the  Samaritans  see  Schiirer :  Geschichte  d.judischen  Volkes,  II.  S.  5  sq. 
(Eng.  Trans.,  Div.  II.  Vol.  I.  p.  5  sq.) ;  also  Kautzsch's  article  in  Herzog's 
Real-Encyclopaedic,  XIII.  S.  340  sq. 


96  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

Jews  were  framed  accordingly.  Their  observance  of  the 
Jewish  law  was  regarded  as  very  defective  by  the  Phari- 
sees, but  they  were  not  treated  as  complete  aliens,  and 
social  intercourse,  even  to  the  extent  of  eating  with 
them,  was  pronounced  entirely  legitimate  by  the  rabbinic 
authorities.  Philip's  work  among  them,  therefore,  did 
not  involve  any  breach  of  Jewish  law,  or  even  an  approach 
thereto;  but  at  the  same  time  it  revealed  an  interest  in 
the  people  of  Samaria  which  the  ordinary  Jew  could  hardly 
be  expected  to  possess,  and  to  that  degree  marked  a  dis- 
tinct advance  upon  the  spirit  of  Judaism  in  general,  an 
advance  toward  the  broader  sympathy  of  Jesus.  It  is  for 
this  reason,  no  doubt,  that  Luke  records  the  incident.  It 
may  not  be  altogether  without  significance  that  the  step 
was  taken  by  one  who  was  very  likely  a  Hellenist,  and 
who,  though  he  might  be  as  strict  an  observer  of  the  Jew- 
ish law  as  any  one  else,  would  naturally  feel  more  of  an 
interest  in  the  outside  world  than  most  of  his  Palestinian 
brethren,  and  would  be  more  inclined  than  they  to  carry 
the  Gospel  to  the  Samaritans. 

The  Samaritans,  like  the  rest  of  the  Jews,  seem  to 
have  been  expecting  a  Messiah,1  and  Philip's  proclama- 
tion of  Jesus  as  the  Christ  was  therefore  understood  by 
them,  though  he  cannot  have  made  use  of  Old  Testa- 
ment prophecy  in  the  same  way  that  Peter  did  in  his 
preaching  at  Jerusalem.  Whether  he  found  the  way 
prepared  for  him  by  the  brief  sojourn  of  Jesus  himself 
in  Sychar  some  years  before,  we  cannot  tell.  There 
is  no  hint  of  it  in  Luke's  account,  but  it  may  well 
be  that  there  were  still  some  with  whom  Jesus  came  in 
contact  that  remembered  him,  possibly  some  that  had 
recognized  .him  as  the  Messiah,  and  if  so  we  can  easily 
believe  that  they  were  glad  to  hear  more  about  him,  and 
to  give  expression  to  their  faith  in  him  by  receiving 
baptism.  However  that  may  be,  Philip's  work  in  Samaria 
was  very  successful,  according  to  Luke,  and  many  con- 
verts were  baptized. 

1  Cf.  e.g.  John  iv.  25 ;  and  the  note  of  Weiss  in  Meyer's  Commentary,  8th 
edition.  Cf.  also  Kautzsch's  article  in  Herzog,  S.  348. 


PRIMITIVE  JEWISH   CHRISTIANITY  97 

It  is  in  accordance  with  his  general  custom  that  the 
author  of  the  Acts  brings  the  missionary  work  among  the 
Samaritans  under  the  official  oversight  and  control  of  the 
church  of  Jerusalem,  or  rather  of  the  apostolic  college,  by 
recording  that  the  assembled  apostles,  when  they  heard  of 
what  had  been  done,  sent  Peter  and  John  to  Samaria ;  and 
that  the  latter  prayed  and  laid  their  hands  upon  the  new 
converts  in  order  that  they  might  receive  the  Holy  Spirit, 
who  had  not  as  yet  come  upon  any  of  them.  That  Peter 
and  John  actually  visited  Samaria,  there  is  no  occasion  to 
doubt;  but  the  idea  that  they  were  sent  from  Jerusalem 
by  the  apostles  as  an  official  delegation  to  organize  the 
Samaritans  into  a  church,  or  to  give  their  Christianity  the 
sanction  of  their  approval,  and  thus  complete  the  work  of 
Philip,  betrays  the  conceptions  of  a  later  age.  The  apos- 
tles did  not  constitute  an  official  board  whose  function 
was  to  exercise  oversight  over  the  church  at  large,  and 
whose  sanction  was  necessary  for  the  inauguration  of  any 
new  missionary  enterprise,  and  for  the  establishment  of 
any  new  church.  The  conception  of  such  an  official  apos- 
tolate  is  certainly  post-apostolic.1  So  that  even  if  Peter 
and  John  did  come  from  Jerusalem  to  Samaria  at  this  time, 
they  came  not  in  an  official  capacity,  but  as  Christian 
brethren  to  Christian  brethren. 

In  the  same  way,  the  idea  that  the  Holy  Spirit  was 
conveyed  to  the  new  converts  by  the  mediation  of  the 
apostles  betrays  the  thinking  of  a  later  age.  The  author 
evidently  means  to  indicate  that  the  apostles  possessed  a 
peculiar  function  which  was  not  shared  by  Philip;  that 
they,  and  they  alone,  could  mediate  the  impartation  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  But  such  a  connection  of  the  gift  of  the 
Spirit  with  a  particular  office  or  with  a  particular  class  of 
men,  is  foreign  to  the  conceptions  of  the  apostolic  age,  as 
is  shown,  even  by  Luke  himself,  in  many  other  passages. 
For  instance,  in  ix.  17,  it  is  recorded  that  Ananias,  an 

1  See  above,  p.  45  sq.  It  is  widely  said  that  the  bishops  were  the  successors 
of  the  apostles.  It  would  perhaps  be  as  near  the  truth  to  say  that  the  apostles 
were  successors  of  the  bishops !  For  the  official  character  that  has  been  as- 
cribed to  the  apostles  since  the  second  century  was  the  result  of  carrying 
back  to  them  the  official  character  of  the  bishops. 

H 


98  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

ordinary  disciple  of  Damascus,  laid  his  hands  upon  Paul 
and  said,  "Brother  Saul,  the  Lord,  even  Jesus,  who  ap- 
peared unto  thee  in  the  way  which  thou  earnest,  hath  sent 
me  that  thou  mayest  receive  thy  sight  and  be  filled  with 
the  Holy  Ghost; "  in  ii.  4,  it  is  stated  that  all  the  assem- 
bled disciples  were  filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  where  cer- 
tainly no  human  agent  can  be  supposed;  and  in  vs.  33  of 
the  same  chapter,  Peter  tells  his  hearers  that  the  exalted 
Jesus  had  poured  forth  the  Spirit  whose  presence  had  been 
manifested  to  them.  That  he  or  any  other  apostle  was 
in  a  position  to  mediate  the  impartation  of  that  Spirit, 
and  that  the  Spirit  could  not  be  imparted  without  his 
mediation,  was  certainly  far  from  his  thought.1 

The  connection  of  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  with  a 
particular  rite,  such  as  the  laying  on  of  hands,2  is  equally 
alien  to  the  conceptions  of  the  apostolic  age,  as  is  shown 
by  Luke  himself,  not  only  in  the  passages  already  referred 
to,  but  also  in  x.  44  and  xi.  15,  where  it  is  distinctly 
stated  that  the  Spirit  fell  upon  Cornelius  and  those  that 
were  with  him,  while  Peter  was  still  speaking,  and  before 
they  had  even  been  baptized.  The  coming  upon  them  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  which  constituted  an  indisputable  evi- 
dence that  Jesus  had  himself  accepted  them,  was  urged  by 
Peter  as  a  reason  why  they  should  receive  baptism.  That 
hands  were  laid  upon  various  persons  on  different  occa- 
sions, even  in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  as  recorded  by 
Luke,3  there  is  no  reason  to  question.  But  it  may  fairly 
be  doubted  whether  the  impartation  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
was  conditioned  by,  or  even  ordinarily  connected  with, 
any  such  rite. 

It  is  clear,  from  vss.  18  and  19,  that  the  descent  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  upon  the  Samaritan  disciples  was  attended 
with  certain  visible  and  audible  phenomena,  as  was  com- 
mon in  the  apostolic  age.4  The  gift  of  the  Spirit  meant 

1  Cf.  Acts  iv.  31,  v.  32,  xi.  17,  xiii.  52. 

2  The  connection  appears  again  in  Acts  xix.  6. 
8  Acts  vi.  6,  ix.  17,  xiii.  3. 

4  See  above,  p.  71 .  Simon's  desire  to  purchase  the  power  to  confer  the  Spirit 
upon  others  shows  clearly  enough  that  the  effect  produced  by  his  descent  upon 
the  new  converts  was  not  their  mere  growth  in  grace  and  piety,  but  something 


PRIMITIVE  JEWISH    CHRISTIANITY  99 

to  the  earl}*  Christians  in  general  not  the  inspiring  and 
controlling  power  of  the  entire  Christian  life,  as  it  did  to 
Paul,  but  the  ability  to  speak  with  tongues,  or  to  prophesy, 
or  to  do  some  other  startling  and  uncommon  and  miracu- 
lous thing.  And  so  the  evidence  of  the  Spirit's  presence 
was  commonly  found  in  these  early  days  in  such  marvel- 
lous manifestations,  which  seem  to  have  been  very  fre- 
quently witnessed.  It  was  because  of  the  striking  effects 
produced  by  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  the  new 
converts,  that  a  certain  magician  named  Simon,  who  is 
represented  as  one  of  them,  is  reported  to  have  tried  to 
induce  the  apostles  to  confer  upon  him  the  power  which 
they  possessed,  in  order  that  he  might  be  able  to  effect 
like  results  by  the  laying  on  of  his  hands.  His  offer  of 
money  was,  of  course,  rejected  with  scorn,  and  a  severe 
condemnation  was  drawn  from  Peter  by  his  blasphemous 
suggestion. 

This  Simon  Magus,  as  he  is  called,  played  quite  an 
important  r61e  in  primitive  church  history.  He  was 
widely  regarded  as  the  father  of  all  heresy,  and  the 
existence  of  an  heretical  sect  which  claimed  him  for  its 
founder,  and  called  itself  after  his  name,  is  attested  by  a 
number  of  second  century  writers.  There  can  be  little 
doubt,  in  the  light  of  the  references  to  him  in  the  Acts 
and  in  the  writings  of  Justin  Martyr  and  Irenseus,1  that 
Simon  claimed  to  be  the  Messiah,  and  that  he  instituted 
a  Messianic  movement  in  Samaria,  which  was  intended  to 
rival  and  supplant 'Christianity,  or  to  take  the  place  among 
the  Samaritans  of  Jesus'  Messianic  movement  among  the 
Jews.  His  effort  to  rival  and  surpass  Jesus  very  likely 
began  after  his  contact  with  the  Christians  which  Luke 
records.  His  religious  system  was  apparently  a  syn- 
cretism of  Jewish  and  Oriental  elements,  and  resembled 
very  closely  some  forms  of  second  century  Gnosticism,  if 

much  more  tangible  and  striking.  It  shows,  too,  that  the  disciples  who  received 
the  Spirit  made  the  impression  even  upon  unbelievers  of  being  in  the  possession 
of  a  power  outside  and  above  themselves.  Simon  would  never  have  offered 
money  for  a  power  that  produced  effects  which  might  as  easily  be  produced 
in  other  ways,  and  which  gave  no  clear  indication  of  supernatural  influence, 
i  Justin,  Apol.  I.  26,  56,  II.  15;  Dial.  120;  Irenseus,  Adv.  Hser.  I.  23. 


100  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

it  did  not  indeed  give  rise  to  them.  Such  syncretism  was 
common  in  Western  Asia  in  the  first  as  well  as  in  the 
second  century.  Simon's  movement,  judging  from  the 
widespread  hostility  which  he  aroused  within  the  church, 
must  have  had  considerable  success,  and  was  certainly  not 
confined  to  Samaria.  With  the  many  and  conflicting 
legends  that  bring  him  into  contact  with  the  apostle 
Peter,  both  in  East  and  West,  and  with  those  that  gather 
about  his  career  in  Rome,  it  is  not  necessary  to  concern 
ourselves  here.1 

The  account  of  the  work  of  Philip  and  the  apostles  in 
Samaria  is  followed  in  the  same  chapter  of  the  Acts  by 
the  story  of  the  conversion  of  an  Ethiopian  eunuch  through 
the  agency  of  Philip.  Eusebius  2  refers  to  the  eunuch  as 
the  first  of  the  Gentiles  to  embrace  Christianity,  and  he 
has  been  followed  by  many  scholars,  who  regard  the 
Ethiopian  as  an  uncircumcised  heathen,  and  therefore  see 
in  his  baptism  the  first  instance  of  a  departure  from  the 
primitive  principle  that  Christianity  is  only  for  Jews, 
native  or  proselyte.  But  there  is  nothing  in  Luke's 
account  to  suggest  that  Philip  took  a  step  of  such  far- 
reaching  consequence  on  this  occasion.  The  fact  that  the 
Ethiopian  had  come  up  to  Jerusalem  to  worship,  and  was 
reading  the  Prophet  Isaiah  when  overtaken  by  Philip, 
suggests  that  if  not  a  native  Jew,  he  was  at  least  a  prose- 
lyte, and  thus  a  recognized  member  of  the  family  of 

1  In  the  pseudo-Clementine  literature  of  the  third  century,  where  Simon 
Magus  is  represented  as  the  arch-heretic  with  whom  Peter  contends  in  defence 
of  the  true  faith,  Ebionitic  hostility  to  the  apostle  Paul  finds  expression  in  a 
covert  attack  upon  him  under  the  cloak  of  Simon.  This  fact  led  many  scholars 
to  deny  that  such  a  person  as  Simon  ever  existed  and  to  resolve  him  into  a 
mere  fiction,  invented  with  an  anti-Pauline  purpose.  The  account  in  Acts  was 
of  course  regarded  by  such  scholars  as  entirely  unhistorical.  But  it  is  now 
generally  recognized  that  such  a  procedure  is  unwarranted,  and  the  theory  has 
been  almost  universally  abandoned.  See  my  edition  of  Eusebius,  p.  113  sq. 
Luke's  account  of  Simon's  dealings  with  the  apostles  can  hardly  be  accurate 
in  all  the  details,  for  it  rests  upon  the  assumption  that  the  Holy  Spirit  was 
given  by  the  laying  on  of  the  apostles'  hands.  But  there  can  be  little  d«»ul»t 
as  to  the  truth  of  the  main  fact,  that  Simon  did  come  into  contact  with  the 
Christians  at  this  time,  and,  impressed  with  the  wonderful  effects  of  the 
Spirit's  presence,  tried  in  some  way  to  secure  the  power  of  imparting  it 
to  others. 

a  Hist.  Eccles.  II.  1. 


PRIMITIVE  JEWISH   CHRISTIANITY  101 

Israel.1  At  any  rate  it  is  inconceivable,  in  the  light  of 
Luke's  account  of  the  conversion  of  Cornelius,  that  he 
intended  to  relate  in  this  passage  the  conversion  of  an 
uncircumcised  Gentile.  The  great  emphasis  which  he  laid 
upon  the  case  of  Cornelius,  the  elaborateness  of  detail 
with  which  he  reproduced  it,  the  scruples  which  he  repre- 
sented as  so  difficult  for  Peter  to  overcome,  the  contro- 
versy which  he  recorded  as  precipitated  in  Jerusalem, 
and  the  defence  of  Peter  which  he  quoted  at  such  length, 
—  all  serve  to  show  that  he  was  describing  in  that  case 
what  he  regarded  as  the  first  occurrence  of  the  kind,  and 
that  he  cannot  have  thought  of  it  as  a  mere- repetition  of 
an  earlier  event  already  recounted  by  him.  The  conversion 
of  the  Ethiopian  he  found  worthy  of  record  not  because  it 
was  a  departure  from  the  principles  of  the  primitive  dis- 
ciples, but  probably  because  it  meant  the  spread  of  the 
Gospel  at  so  early  a  day  to  a  land  so  far  distant  from  the 
place  of  its  birth. 

The  first  recorded  departure  from  primitive  principles 
took  place  in  connection  with  the  Caesarean  centurion, 
Cornelius,  of  whose  conversion  Luke  gives  a  detailed 
account  in  chapters  x.  and  xi.  Though  a  pious  and 
God-fearing  man,2  Cornelius  was  neither  a  Jew  nor  a 
Jewish  proselyte,  and  therefore  his  admission  to  the 
Christian  church  was  a  distinct  violation  of  the  prin- 
ciples that  had  hitherto  controlled  the  action  of  the  dis- 
ciples. It  is  in  this  light  that  Luke  pictures  the  event. 
He  evidently  regarded  it  as  an  occurrence  of  the  very  great- 
est significance,  as  nothing  less,  in  fact,  than  the  official 

1  According  to  Deut.  xxiii.  1,  a  eunuch  could  not  be  a  member  of  the  con- 
gregation of  Israel,  and  therefore  could  not  be  received  as  a  proselyte ;  but 
the  term  may  have  been  employed  in  the  present  case  simply  as  an  official 
title,  as  it  was  very  commonly  in  the  East.    At  any  rate,  it  is  not  certain  that 
the  prohibition  was  strictly  observed  at  this  time.    Cf .  Isa.  Ivi.  3,  which  antici- 
pates its  abrogation. 

2  eva-eftr)*  Kal  0oj3otV*ei>os  rbv  Qebv  (Acts  x.  2).    The  words  have  a  technical 
sense,  and  indicate  that  Cornelius  was  one  of  the  large  class  of  Gentiles  who 
worshipped  the  God  of  the  Jews  and  endeavored  to  conform  their  lives  in  a 
general  way  to  his  will,  while  they  did  not  accept  circumcision  and  thus  be- 
come proselytes.     (See  below,  p.  160.)    The  term  "  proselytes  of  the  gate,"  by 
which  such  men  were  formerly  called,  is  a  misnomer.    See  Schurer :  Geschichte 
desjiidischen  Volkes,  II.  S.  567  sq.  (Eng.  Trans.,  Div.  II.  Vol.  II.  p.  316  sq.). 


102  THE   APOSTOLIC    AGE 

recognition  by  the  apostles  and  other  Christians  of  Jerusa- 
lem of  the  Christianity  of  the  Gentiles,  and  of  their  right 
to  enter  the  church  without  passing  through  the  door  of 
Judaism.  The  question  is,  can  such  action  on  the  part 
of  the  disciples  of  Jerusalem  be  reconciled  with  the  subse- 
quent course  of  events  as  revealed  to  us  in  Paul's  Epistle 
to  the  Galatians  ?  It  is  claimed  by  many  scholars  that  it 
cannot;  that  the  apostolic  council,  to  which  Paul  refers 
in  Gal.  ii.,  and  Luke  in  Acts  xv.,  implies  that  the  question 
of  the  legitimacy  of  Gentile  Christianity  had  not  before 
presented  itself  to  the  Christians  of  the  mother  church, 
and  that  it  was  only  by  the  arguments  and  influence  of 
Paul  that  they  were  induced  to  give  it  the  sanction  they 
did  on  that  occasion. 

But  the  council  took  place  not  less  than  fourteen 
years  after  Paul's  conversion,  and  for  at  least  a  part 
of  that  time  he  had  been  diligently  preaching  the  Gos- 
pel to  the  Gentiles,  and  had  met  with  very  large  success 
in  his  work.  It  is  upon  the  face  of  it  incredible  that 
during  all  that  period  the  Christians  of  Jerusalem  were 
ignorant  of  what  he  was  doing,  and  it  is  equally  in- 
credible that  the  question  as  to  the  legitimacy  of  the 
new  form  of  Gospel  which  he  was  preaching  did  not  sug- 
gest itself  to  them.  Indeed,  in  the  first  chapter  of  his 
Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  Paul  distinctly  states  that  his 
work  had  long  been  known  to  them,  and  that  they  regarded 
that  work  with  approval.1  It  is  to  be  noticed,  also,  that 
Gal.  ii.  4  sq.  implies  that  the  "false  brethren,"  as  Paul 
calls  those  who  opposed  the  legitimacy  of  his  Gentile 
Christianity  and  endeavored  to  make  circumcision  an 
indispensable  condition  of  salvation,  had  recently  come 
into  the  church  and  did  not  represent,  with  their  extreme 
views,  the  sentiment  that  had  hitherto  prevailed  in  the 
church  of  Jerusalem.  The  fact,  then,  that  the  legitimacy 
of  Gentile  Christianity  was  challenged  in  Jerusalem  some 
fourteen  years  after  Paul's  conversion,  cannot  be  made  to 
militate  against  the  recognition  of  its  legitimacy  at  ;m 
earlier  day.  And  it  may  well  be  that  such  recognition 

i  "  They  glorified  God  in  me  "  Paul  says  in  Gal.  i.  24. 


PRIMITIVE  JEWISH   CHRISTIANITY  103 

was  a  result  of  the  conversion  of  Cornelius,  as  Luke  re- 
cords. For  the  tremendous  change  of  principle  involved 
in  it  requires  some  exceptional  event  for  its  explanation. 
We  cannot  suppose  that  the  Jewish  Christians,  loyal  as 
they  were  to  the  law  of  their  fathers,  admitted  that  its 
observance  was  not  a  necessary  condition  of  the  enjoyment 
of  the  blessings  of  the  Messianic  kingdom,  except  under 
the  pressure  of  the  most  convincing  arguments.  Possibly 
the  persecution  which  began  with  the  execution  of  Stephen 
had  led  some  of  them  to  doubt  whether  there  was  any 
hope  of  the  conversion  of  the  Jewish  people  as  a  whole, 
and  to  turn  their  thoughts  to  the  Gentile  world  as  a  pos- 
sible field  for  evangelistic  work;  but  the  persecution, 
though  it  may  have  prepared  the  way  for  broader  views, 
cannot  have  effected  the  change  of  principle  which  the 
recognition  of  Paul's  work  presupposes.  The  visit  of 
Paul  to  Jerusalem  three  years  after  his  conversion,  which 
he  refers  to  in  Gal.  i.  18,  might  be  thought  of  as  the  pos- 
sible cause  of  the  transformation ;  but  there  is  no  hint  in 
his  account  that  the  visit  had  any  such  significance, 
and  there  is  no  sign  of  a  controversy  or  conflict  such  as 
could  hardly  have  been  avoided  if  the  legitimacy  of  Gen- 
tile Christianity  had  then  been  discussed.  In  fact,  no 
other  event  of  which  we  have  any  knowledge  is  so  weli. 
calculated  as  the  conversion  of  Cornelius  through  the 
agency  of  Peter  to  account  for  the  development  that  took 
place  sometime  before  the  apostolic  council. 

That  Peter  should  respond  at  once  to  the  invitation  of 
Cornelius,  and  should  enter  his  house  and  preach  the 
Gospel  to  him,  was  entirely  in  accord  with  his  character 
as  revealed  on  many  other  occasions.  It  was  the  same 
impulsive  and  uncalculating  spirit  that  led  him  at  a  later 
time  to  throw  aside  all  traditional  scruples,  and  to  live  in 
intimate  fellowship  with  the  Gentile  Christians  of  Anti- 
och.  He  was  just  the  man  to  whom  such  a  request  as 
that  of  Cornelius  would  appeal  most  strongly,  and  he  was 
just  the  man  who  would  accept  most  unquestioningly  the 
divine  evidence  of  his  conversion,  and  be  quickest  to  act 
upon  that  evidence  and  receive  the  new  convert  as  a 


104  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

Christian  brother.  But  Peter  had  been  from  the  begin- 
ning the  foremost  of  the  disciples,  and  the  influence  of 
his  example,  and  of  the  experience  which  he  had  to  re- 
count to  his  Jerusalem  brethren,  could  not  but  be  very 
great.  Had  the  experience  befallen  some  other  disciple 
of  less  personal  weight  and  authority  than  he,  its  effect 
upon  the  mother  church  would  very  likely  have  been  far 
less. 

But  it  has  been  objected  by  many  that  the  conversion  of 
Cornelius  under  the  preaching  of  Peter  destroys  the  inde- 
pendence and  originality  of  Paul's  work  as  an  apostle  to 
the  Gentiles ;  and  it  is  maintained  also  that  Paul's  refer- 
ence to  Peter  in  Gal.  ii.,  as  the  apostle  of  the  circum- 
cision, proves  that  the  latter  cannot  have  preached  the 
Gospel  to  Gentiles  as  he  is  represented  as  doing  in  the 
case  in  question.  But  though  Paul  claims  that  he  has 
labored  more  abundantly  than  all  the  other  apostles,1 
and  though  he  speaks  of  himself  frequently  as  the  apostle 
to  the  Gentiles,  and  of  the  large  work  that  he  has  done 
among  them,  and  though  he  more  than  once  expresses  the 
intention  not  to  build  upon  another  man's  foundation,  he 
nowhere  says  or  implies  that  he  was  the  first  to  preach  the 
Gospel  to  the  Gentiles,  and  there  is  nothing  in  the  cir- 
cumstances to  lead  to  such  a  conclusion.  His  conscious- 
ness of  independence  and  originality  in  his  apostolic  labors 
rested  not  upon  the  knowledge  that  he  had  begun  the 
work  among  the  Gentiles,  and  that  no  one  had  thought  of 
doing  it  before  him,  but  upon  the  conviction  that  he  had 
been  called  not  by  man,  but  by  God,  to  be  their  great 
apostle,  and  to  do  for  them  what  others  had  done  and  were 
doing  for  the  Jews.  So  far  as  his  reference  to  Peter  is 
concerned,  his  designation  of  him  as  the  apostle  of  the  cir- 
cumcision no  more  proves  that  Peter  cannot  have  preached, 
even  on  a  single  occasion,  to  the  Gentiles,  than  does  the 
fact  that  Paul  calls  himself,  in  the  same  passage,  the 
apostle  of  the  uncircumcision  prove  that  he  never  preached 
to  the  Jews,  when  we  know  from  his  own  words,  in  1  Cor. 
ix.  20,  that  he  must  have  done  so  frequently. 

1 1  Cor.  xv.  10. 


PRIMITIVE   JEWISH   CHRISTIANITY  105 

But  it  is  objected  finally,  that  the  trouble  at  Antioch 
to  which  Paul  refers  in  Gal.  ii.  11  sq.,  is  inconceivable 
if  the  case  of  Cornelius  be  historical;  for  if  James,  and 
the  Christians  of  Jerusalem  in  general,  had  signified  their 
approval  of  Peter's  conduct  in  eating  with  an  uncircum- 
cised  Gentile  in  Csesarea,  they  could  not  have  found  fault 
with  him  for  doing  the  same  thing  later  in  Antioch;  and 
Peter,  though  he  might  have  been  weak  and  vacillating, 
could  not  have  been  so  characterless  as  to  violate  on  that 
occasion,  out  of  mere  cowardly  deference  to  the  opin- 
ion of  James,  an  express  divine  command  which  had  led 
him  to  take  such  a  decisive  step  as  to  preach  the  Gospel 
to  Cornelius  and  break  bread  with  him.  The  objection, 
however,  implies  a  misunderstanding  of  the  incident,  for 
which  Luke  himself  is  in  part  responsible.  In  Acts  xi. 
3,  the  disciples  of  Jerusalem  are  represented  as  contend- 
ing with  Peter  because  he  had  gone  in  to  men  uncircum- 
cised  and  had  eaten  with  them;  but  it  is  a  striking  fact 
that,  in  the  address  which  follows,  Peter  does  not  defend 
himself  against  that  charge,  but  against  the  charge  of 
recognizing  a  Gentile  as  a  Christian  disciple  and  admit- 
ting him  to  baptism,  which  is  an  entirely  different  matter. 
It  is  no  less  striking  that  the  members  of  the  church  of 
Jerusalem  glorify  God  not  because  he  has  broken  down 
the  wall  between  the  Jew  and  the  Gentile,  and  has  made 
it  lawful  for  the  Jewish  Christian  to  eat  bread  with  his 
Gentile  brother,  but  only  because  he  has  granted  to  the 
Gentiles  repentance  unto  life.  In  other  words,  they 
recognized  just  what  was  recognized  at  a  later  time  at 
the  apostolic  council,  the  legitimacy  of  Gentile  Chris- 
tianity; but  they  did  not  admit  the  right  of  any  Jew  to 
cease  observing  the  Jewish  law,  and  to  disregard  the 
prohibition  against  eating  with  the  uncircumcised.  The 
latter  step  was  not  taken  even  at  the  council  some  years 
later,  and  we  certainly  cannot  suppose  that  it  was  taken 
at  this  time.  Luke  evidently  did  not  realize  the  differ- 
ence between  the  two  steps.  He  supposed  that  the 
settlement  of  the  one  question  was  the  settlement  of 
the  other,  and  he  therefore  did  not  distinguish  them  in 


106  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

his  account.1  But  his  failure  to  do  so  should  not  lead 
us  to  the  conclusion  that  the  whole  account  is  unhistori- 
cal,  and  that  the  incident  recorded  never  took  place. 

It  may  fairly  be  doubted  whether  the  idea  of  eating 
with  Cornelius  and  the  other  Gentile  converts  presented 
itself  to  Peter,  for  they  would  certainly  not  expect  him  to. 
It  may  well  be  that  he  only  preached  the  Gospel  to  them, 
and  in  view  of  the  bestowal  of  the  Holy  Spirit  recognized 
them  as  Christians  and  directed  them  to  be  baptized.  At 
any  rate,  if  he  did  more  than  this,  if  he  actually  ate  with 
the  Gentile  converts,  he  did  it  not  because  his  conscien- 
tious scruples  had  been  removed  by  the  vision  on  the 
housetop,  but  because  of  Christ's  acceptance  of  the  Gen- 
tiles as  his  disciples,  which  was  made  evident  by  the  out- 
pouring of  the  Spirit.  It  was  the  presence  of  the  Spirit, 
not  the  vision  on  the  housetop,  that  he  regarded  as  the  de- 
cisivu  fact,  both  in  Ctesarea  and  later  when  he  defended  his 
course  in  Jerusalem.  But  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit, 
while  it  meant  divine  recognition  of  Gentile  Christianity, 
did  not  necessarily  mean  that  a  Jew,  because  he  was  a 
Christian,  had  a  right  to  violate  the  divine  law,  and  if 
Peter  at  this  time  took  it  to  mean  that,  and  acted  accord- 
ingly, he  certainly  did  not  secure  the  approval  of  his 
brethren,  and  did  not  repeat  his  act  for  many  years. 

We  conclude,  then,  that  whatever  may  be  thought  of 
the  accuracy  of  Luke's  account  in  all  its  details,  there  is 
no  adequate  ground  for  doubting  that  Peter  preached  the 
Gospel  to  the  Gentile  Cornelius,  and  that  the  legitimacy 
of  his  action  was  acknowledged  by  the  Christians  of  Jeru- 
salem, or  at  any  rate  by  the  most  influential  among  them. 
But  that  they  admitted  that  it  was  lawful  for  a  Jewish 
Christian  to  break  bread  with  his  Gentile  brethren,  or,  in 
other  words,  to  disregard  the  Jewish  law  in  any  particu- 
lar, must  be  unequivocally  denied. 

1  It  is  perhaps  for  this  reason  that  Luke  says  nothing  — if  indeed  he  knew 
anything  about  it  —  of  the  Antiochian  trouble  which  succeeded  the  conference 
at  Jerusalem.  Not  realizing  that  any  other  question  was  involved  at  Antiorh 
than  had  been  discussed  and  settled  just  before  at  Jerusalem,  he  may  have 
been  totally  unable  to  understand  the  situation,  and  therefore  simply  omitted 
all  reference  to  it. 


PRIMITIVE   JEWISH   CHRISTIANITY  107 

It  will  not  do,  indeed,  to  draw  too  large  deductions 
from  the  case  of  Cornelius ;  it  will  not  do  to  see  in  the 
admission  of  the  legitimacy  of  Gentile  Christianity, 
which  was  extorted  from  the  disciples  of  Jerusalem  at 
this  time,  the  conscious .  recognition  of  the  principle  of 
universal  fraternity  and  equality  in  the  Gospel.  That 
they  foresaw  the  momentous  consequences  that  were 
wrapped  up  in  their  action,  is  out  of  the  question.  They 
were  forced  by  the  demonstration  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
admit,  in  spite  of  their  native  prejudices,  the  possibility 
of  a  Gentile's  conversion,  but  they  did  not  see  in  it  the 
ultimate  abrogation  of  the  Jewish  law,  or  the  rise  of  a 
Christian  church  in  which  that  law  should  have  no  recog- 
nition. It  was  certainly  not  their  belief  that  the  law  was 
any  less  divine,  any  less  binding,  any  less  permanent, 
than  they  had  hitherto  thought  it.  When  the  Christians 
of  Jerusalem  approved  Peter's  action,  neither  he  nor  they 
thought  for  a  moment  of  turning  from  the  Jews  to  the 
Gentiles,  or  of  carrying  on  active  missionary  work  among 
the  latter;  nor  had  they  any  idea  that  Gentile  Christianity 
would  one  day  become  so  strong  that  it  could  take  an 
independent  position  alongside  of  Jewish  Christianity 
and  demand  for  itself  equal  honor  and  equal  rights.  At 
best  it  was  regarded  as  an  exceptional  form  of  Chris- 
tianity, of  a  distinctly  lower  and  less  perfect  type,  and 
it  was  doubtless  their  expectation  that  the  great  majority 
of  Christians  would  come  from  the  ranks  of  the  Jews, 
native  or  proselyte,  and  that  Gentile  worshippers  of  Jeho- 
vah, who  might  be  admitted  to  the  church  because  they 
recognized  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  would  continue  to 
acknowledge  the  religious  superiority  of  the  chosen 
people,  just  as  those  Gentiles  had  always  done  who  rever- 
enced Jehovah  as  the  supreme  God  and  attached  them- 
selves more  or  less  closely  to  the  Jewish  people  without 
accepting  circumcision  and  becoming  genuine  proselytes. 
From  such  pious  heathen  the  number  of  the  proselytes  was 
constantly  augmented,  and  it  may  have  been  the  belief  of 
these  early  Christians  that  the  family  of  Israel  would 
receive  accessions  in  the  same  way  from  the  ranks  of  the 


108  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

Gentiles  that  recognized  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  and  thus 
Gentile  Christianity  constitute  for  many  only  a  bridge  to 
the  full  and  complete  Christianity  of  the  believing  chil- 
dren of  Abraham.1  They  did  not  become  any  the  less 
truly  Jews,  nor  did  they  consciously  waive  any  of  their 
ancestral  prerogatives.  To  think  otherwise  is  to  under- 
estimate the  power  of  their  traditional  faith  and  to  make 
inexplicable  the  subsequent  attitude  toward  the  heathen 
assumed  in  Jerusalem,  both  by  those  who  admitted  and 
by  those  who  denied  their  conversion. 

In  Acts  xi.  19  sq.,  Luke  records  that  certain  men  of 
Cyprus  and  Cyrene,  who  must  have  been  either  Hellenists 
or  proselytes,  being  scattered  abroad  by  the  persecution 
which  followed  Stephen's  death,  came  to  Antioch,  and 
there  preached  the  Gospel  to  Gentiles,2  and  that  a 
great  number  of  the  latter  were  converted.  There  is 
nothing  surprising  in  this,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt 
the  truth  of  the  report.  The  fact  that  Luke  makes  this 
Gentile  evangelism  the  work  not  of  apostles,  but  of  un- 
known men,  and  that  he  does  not  represent  it  as  prompted 
by  the  church  of  Jerusalem,  speaks  for  the  trustworthiness 
of  his  account.  It  is  no  more  than  we  might  expect,  that 
Christian  Hellenists  and  proselytes,  with  their  intimate 
acquaintance  and  association  with  the  Greek  world, 
should  have  been  moved,  when  obliged  to  leave  Jerusa- 
lem, to  tell  their  Gentile  friends  of  Christianity.  And 
nowhere  was  such  conduct  more  natural  than  in  Antioch, 
for  we  learn  from  Josephus,3  not  only  that  there  were 
multitudes  of  Jews  there,  but  that  they  were  especially 
active  in  the  work  of  proselyting,  and  had  a  large  follow- 
ing among  the  Greeks  of  the  city.  At  any  rate,  whether 

1  It  is  significant  that  the  Galatians  later  used  their  Gentile  Christianity  iu 
just  this  way,  finding  no  inconsistency  in  going  on  from  the  belief  in  Christ 
to  the  assumption  of  the  entire  law.    Cf.  Gal.  iii.  3. 

2  The  best  manuscripts  read  'EXXrjvurrds  or  Hellenists,  instead  of  "EXXTji/as 
or  Greeks,  and  Westcott  and  Hort  adopt  this  reading.  Other  editors  (Lachmann, 
Tregelles,  Tischendorf)  read  "EXX^as  on  the  ground  that  the  word  "  Hellen- 
ists" does  not  offer  the  necessary  contrast  to  the  word  "Jews  "  in  the  previ- 
ous verse,  the  Hellenists  being  themselves  Jews.     Wendt  adopts  the  reading 
'EXXTjj/uTTds,  but  regards  the  word  as  referring  to  Greeks,  and  he  is  very  likely 
correct.     At  any  rate,  Gentiles,  not  Jews,  must  certainly  be  understood. 

*B.J.,  vii.  33. 


PRIMITIVE  JEWISH   CHRISTIANITY  109 

surprising  or  not,  it  is  certain  that  the  Gospel  went  to 
Antioch  at  an  early  day,  and  that  there  was  a  strong  Gen- 
tile Christian  community  there  some  time  before  the 
council  of  Jerusalem.1 

Luke,  as  is  his  custom,  brings  the  work  in  Antioch 
directly  under  the  control  of  the  church  at  Jerusalem. 
He  records,  in  vss.  22  sq.,  that  when  the  report  of  what 
had  been  done  reached  the  ears  of  the  Christians  of  that 
church,  they  sent  Barnabas  to  Antioch,  and  that  when  he 
had  seen  the  grace  of  God,  he  gave  his  approval  to  the 
work  there.  It  is,  of  course,  possible  that  the  disciples 
at  Jerusalem  had  no  serious  fault  to  find  with  the  spread 
of  Christianity  among  the  heathen  in  Antioch,  if  they 
learned  of  it  after  Peter's  experience  with  Cornelius  had 
led  them  to  admit  the  possibility  of  a  Gentile  Christianity; 
but  it  is  not  likely  that  they  would  themselves  undertake 
to  carry  on  the  work  thus  begun;  and  Luke,  as  has  been 
seen,  so  habitually  brings  all  missionary  activity  under 
the  direct  oversight  of  the  mother  church  or  of  the  apos- 
tles, that  little  weight  can  be  laid  upon  this  particular 
account,  which  may  so  easily  be  due  to  the  same  interest. 
But  there  is  at  any  rate  no  reason  to  doubt  that  Barnabas 
and  Paul  labored  together  among  the  Gentiles  at  Antioch, 
as  Luke  records,  and  the  fact  is  confirmed,  at  least  for  a 
subsequent  period,  by  Paul  himself  in  Gal.  ii.  11  sq. 

It  is  in  this  same  connection  that  Luke  reports  the  in- 
teresting and  significant  fact  that  the  disciples  were  called 
Christians  first  in  Antioch.  Tacitus2  says  that  the 
Romans  called  them  by  this  name  in  the  time  of  Nero, 
and  some  scholars  have  consequently  thought  that  the 
name  had  its  origin  in  Rome ;  but  Lipsius  3  has  shown  that 
the  word  is  probably  Greek,  not  Latin,  being  formed  after 

1  It  is  of  course  conceivable  that  Gentile  Christianity  in  Antioch  owed  its 
origin  to  the  preaching  of  Paul ;  but  it  is  extremely  unlikely,  for  the  city  is 
mentioned  only  once  in  his  Epistles  (Gal.  ii.  11),  and  he  addressed  no  letter,  so 
far  as  we  know,  to  the  Antiochian  church.    It  is  in  itself  inherently  probable 
therefore,  quite  independently  of  Luke's  account,  that  Paul  found  Gentile 
Christians  already  in  Antioch  when  he  began  Christian  work  there,  as  re- 
corded in  Acts  xi.  26. 

2  Ann.  XV.  44. 

3  Ueber  den  Ursprung  und  dltesten  Gebrauch  des  Christennamens,  1873. 


110  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

the  analogy  of  proper  adjectives  in  -0^09,  -tavo?,  which  were 
very  commonly  employed  by  the  Greeks  of  Asia  as  party 
designations.  The  term  might  therefore  easily  have 
originated  in  Antioch.  It  is  not  likely,  however,  that  it 
was  first  used  by  the  disciples,  for  they  called  themselves 
commonly  aSeXc^oi  or  ayioi',  nor  is  it  likely  that  it  was 
used  by  the  Jews,  for  they  could  not  have  acknowledged 
the  disciples  of  Jesus  as  followers  of  the  Messiah.  The 
Jews  commonly  called  them  Nazarenes,  or  the  "Sect  of 
the  Nazarenes."1  The  name  " Christian  "  was  doubtless 
first  employed  by  the  heathen,2  the  word  "  Christ "  being 
understood  by  them  not  as  a  title,  but  as  a  proper  name. 
The  invention  of  the  word,  if  it  was  due  to  them,  implies 
that  the  Christians  had  already  become  more  or  less  sharply 
distinguished  from  the  Jews,  and  that  they  were  recog- 
nized as  a  separate,  if  not  independent,  religious  sect. 
That  this  should  have  been  the  case  at  an  early  day  in 
Antioch  is  what  we  should  expect,  if  Luke's  report  of 
Gentile  conversions  there  be  accepted.  Such  Gentile 
Christians  could  not  become  a  part  of  the  Jewish  church. 
It  was  therefore  inevitable,  as  their  numbers  increased, 
that  they  should  constitute,  either  alone  or  in  company 
with  Jewish  Christians  that  had  thrown  off  the  restraints 
of  the  law,  a  community  of  their  own,  which  had  its 
religious  life  not  within  but  without  the  Jewish  syna- 
gogue. So  soon  as  this  state  of  affairs  existed,  the  con- 
ditions were  present  which  made  the  rise  of  the  special 
name  "  Christian  "  possible,  and  it  can  hardly  have  been 
very  long  before  the  name  was  coined. 

In  Antioch,  then,  under  the  circumstances  described, 
we  may  suppose  that  there  came  into  existence  at  an  early 
day  a  Christian  community,  composed,  if  not  wholly,  at 
least  in  large  part,  of  uncircumcised  Gentiles,  with  whom 
a  Jew  could  not  lawfully  fraternize.  This  community, 

1  ij  TWV  TXafrpalwv  averts,  Acts  xxiv.  5;  cf.  also  Acts  xxiv.  14  and  xxviii. 
22. 

2  Ultimately  it  was  adopted  by  the  disciples  themselves  and  in  the  second 
century  was  commonly  used  by  them.    In  the  New  Testament  the  word  occurs 
in  only  two  other  passages  (Acts  xxvi.  28,  1  Peter  iv.  Ifi)  and  both  times  as 
applied  by  an  outsider.    In  the  Teaching  of  the  Apostles  it  occurs  once  as  a 
self-designation,  and  in  Ignatius  and  the  Apologists  very  frequently. 


PRIMITIVE  JEWISH   CHRISTIANITY  111 

whatever  the  attitude  of  its  individual  members  toward 
Judaism,  did  not  bear  the  character  of  a  Jewish  sect. 
There  cannot  have  been  within  it  any  Jewish  Christians 
who  still  continued  to  observe  the  Mosaic  law  strictly  and 
literally  in  all  its  parts,  though  there  may  have  been  many 
such  in  the  city.  It  is  possible  that  there  belonged  to  the 
circle  some  Jewish  disciples  who  laid  aside  their  ancestral 
scruples  and  mingled  freely  and  intimately  with  their 
Gentile  brethren,  as  there  certainly  were  some  years  later.1 
But  there  can  hardly  have  been  many  such  at  this  early 
day,  for  had  the  practice  become  general,  the  question  as 
to  its  legitimacy  would  have  been  raised  at  the  council  of 
Jerusalem,  and  found  some  settlement  which  would  have 
made  the  Antiochian  episode  referred  to  in  Gal.  ii.  11  sq. 
impossible.  But  whether  there  were  or  were  not  many 
Jewish  Christians  in  Antioch  that  treated  the  Gentile 
disciples  as  brethren,  and  as  members  of  a  common  house- 
hold of  faith,  there  was  at  any  rate  a  growing  number  of 
Christians  there  who  were  not  circumcised,  and  who  did 
not  pretend  to  be  Jews  in  any  sense.  In  Antioch  there 
was  for  some  years  the  most  important  Gentile  Christian 
community  of  which  we  have  any  knowledge.  It  consti- 
tuted for  a  time  the  centre  of  Gentile  Christianity,  as 
Jerusalem  was  the  centre  of  Jewish  Christianity,  and  it 
was  one  of  Paul's  headquarters  during  a  considerable  part 
of  his  career  as  an  apostle.  With  the  rise  of  such  a  Gen- 
tile Christian  community  in  Antioch,  a  community  which 
was  not  bound  to  the  synagogue  and  did  not  pay  allegiance 
to  it,  there  began  a  separate  and  independent  development, 
the  results  of  which  were  of  permanent  and  world-wide 
significance.  Not  the  conversion  of  Cornelius,  or  of  any 
individual  Gentile,  marks  the  cardinal  epoch  in  that  devel- 
opment, but  the  origin  of  such  a  Christian  community  as 
has  been  described,  wherever  and  whenever  it  took  place. 
The  latter  step  was  a  natural  result  of  the  former,  but 
it  can  hardly  have  been  foreseen  by  those  who  recognized 
the  conversion  of  Cornelius.  Had  it  been,  it  may  well  be 
doubted  whether  that  conversion  would  have  found  any 

i  Gal.  ii.  11  sq. 


112  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

general  sanction  in  Jerusalem.  It  is  significant  that  the 
process  by  which  Gentile  Christianity  attained  the  footing 
which  it  finally  enjoyed  was  gradual,  and  that  the  succes- 
sive steps  were  taken  only  one  at  a  time.  The  early  dis- 
ciples of  Jerusalem  would  never  have  taken  any  of  those 
steps  of  their  own  impulse.  They  simply  followed  the 
inevitable  logic  of  events;  they  did  not  lead.  Christi- 
anity had  an  expansive  power  which  was  too  strong  for 
the  bonds  that  they  had  put  upon  it,  and  it  burst  those 
bonds,  we  may  say,  of  itself.  It  was  not  deliberately  sent 
or  carried  to  the  heathen ;  it  went  to  them  and  made  a  home 
for  itself  on  Gentile  soil,  even  while  the  original  disciples 
were  still  steeped  in  Jewish  prejudices  and  entirely  un- 
able to  recognize  that  the  faith  they  preached  was  anything 
but  a  Jewish  faith.  The  steps  in  the  process  of  emanci- 
pation followed  one  another  in  natural  sequence.  Only 
as  we  trace  them  one  by  one  can  we  understand  the  final 
step,  and  realize  that  it  was  inevitable.  That  final  step, 
with  the  momentous  transformations  that  resulted,  we 
shall  have  to  consider  in  a  later  chapter,  after  we  have 
studied  the  Christianity  of  Paul,  the  great  apostle  to  the 
Gentiles,  whe  was  chiefly  instrumental  in  bringing  it 
about. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  CHEISTIANITY  OF   PAUL1 

PAUL  was  born  in  Tarsus,  the  capital  of  the  province  of 
Cilicia,  in  Asia  Minor,  and  one  of  the  great  literary  centres 
of  the  world.2  It  is  not  without  significance  that  his 
native  place  was  a  large  and  important  city,  renowned  for 
its  educational  advantages,  and  proud  of  its  Greek  cult- 
ure and  uncommon  devotion  to  intellectual  pursuits.  It 
would  be  a  most  surprising  thing  if  a  man  of  Paul's 
mental  calibre  had  not  been  more  or  less  affected  by  the 
atmosphere  which  prevailed  in  such  a  place,  and  if  he  had 
not  revealed  throughout  his  life  the  influence  of  his  early 
surroundings.  That  he  got  the  greater  part  of  his  educa- 
tion in  Jerusalem  seems  to  be  implied  in  Acts  xxii.  3, 
and  is  confirmed  by  all  that  we  know  of  him  from  his 
epistles.  But  in  spite  of  that  fact,  his  pride  in  his  native 
place,  and  his  affection  for  it,  remained  with  him,3  and 
his  subsequent  career  shows  that  his  student  life  in  Jeru- 
salem did  not  efface  the  impression  of  the  years  spent  at 
home  in  Tarsus,  and  did  not  stifle  the  instincts  and  im- 

1  See  especially,  in  addition  to  the  general  works  on  the  apostolic  age  and 
on  New  Testament  Theology,  Ludemann:   Die  Anthropologie  des  Apostels 
Paulus  und  ihre  Stellung  innerhalb  seiner  Heilslehre  (1872) ;  Pfleiderer :  Der 
Paulinismus  (1873,  2te  Auflage,  1890;  Eng.  Trans,  from  the  first  edition, 
1877,  in  two  volumes),  also  Das  Urchristenthum  (1887),  S.  123  sq.;  Me'ne'goz: 
Le  Pfcht  et  la  Redemption  d'apres  Saint  Paul  (1882)  ;   and  J)u  Bose:  The 
Soteriology  of  the  New  Testament  (1892).     Sabatier's  L'Apotre  Paul  (2d  ed. 
1881;   Eng.   Trans.   1891),  Matheson's    Spiritual  Development  of   St.    Paul 
(1892),  Everett's  Gospel  of  Paul  (1893),  Stevens'  Pauline  Theology  (1892),  and 
Bruce's  St.  Paul's  Conception  of  Christianity  (1894),  may  also  be  referred  to. 

2  Tarsus  was  already  an  important  city  in  the  time  of  Xenophon ;  and 
Strabo  celebrates  the  literary  character  of  the  place,  ranking  its  citizens  even 
above  those  of  Athens  and  Alexandria  in  their  love  of  learning  and  their  devo- 
tion to  all  things  intellectual.    For  references  to  the  city  in  ancient  literature, 
see  Winer's  Biblisches  Realworterbuch,  s.v. 

8  Acts  xxi.  39. 

I  113 


114  THE   ABOSTOLIC   AGE 

pulses  acquired  there.  That  he  had  a  regular  Greek  edu- 
cation may  well  be  doubted.  It  was  not  the  custom  for 
strict  Jews  to  give  their  children  such  a  training,  and 
Paul's  epistles  betray  neither  a  wide  knowledge  of  Greek 
literature  nor  a  command  of  good  Greek  style.1.  And  yet, 
even  without  such  an  education,  there  must  have  been 
much  in  the  general  culture  of  the  community  whose  in- 
fluence a  youth  of  his  intellectual  alertness  could  not  help 
feeling,  even  unconsciously  to  himself.  It  is  certain  that 
his  manners  were  those  of  a  citizen  of  the  world  familiar 
with  the  habits  of  good  society,  that  he  had  the  facile 
adaptability  of  a  cosmopolite,  and  that  he  felt  himself  at 
home  amid  all  surroundings  and  in  association  with  all 
classes  of  people.  Wherever  he  might  be,  he  was  master 
of  the  situation,  and  he  displayed  the  same  assurance  arid 
address  whether  in  the  presence  of  the  superstitious  rabble 
of  Lystra,  of  the  supercilious  scholars  of  Athens,  or  of 
magistrates,  proconsuls,  and  princes.2  There  was  nothing 
provincial  either  in  his  tastes  or  tendencies.  Strict  Jew 
though  he  was,  he  had  the  instincts  and  the  interests  of  a 
.Roman  citizen,  and  of  a  resident  of  a  busy  and  cultured 
city  of  the  world.  Doubtless  his  social  position  also  had 
something  to  do  with  the  characteristics  which  he  dis- 
played along  these  lines.  He  was  the  son  of  a  Roman 
citizen,3  and  he  came,  therefore,  from  an  honorable,  and 
very  likely  wealthy,  family,  whose  dignity  and  influence 
must  have  been  considerable;4  for  citizenship  meant  a 
great  deal  in  his  day.  But  it  was  not  simply  in  his  man- 
ners, and  in  his  tastes  and  interests,  that  Paul  revealed  the 
influence  of  Tarsus ;  his  philosophical  and  theological  con- 
ceptions were  also  moulded  to  no  small  degree  by  certain 

1  The  three  quotations  from  Greek  authors,  which  have  been  pointed  out  in 
his  epistles  and  speeches  (1  Cor.  xv.  32;  Titus  i.  12;  Acts  xvii.  28),  count  for 
nothing,  even  though  it  be  granted  that  all  of  them  are  really  Paul's,  for  they 
are  such  as  might  have  been  picked  up  by  anybody  in  his  intercourse  with 
educated  heathen.    Paul's  style  is  Hebraistic,  and  is  far  from  being  the  style 
of  a  man  educated  in  the  Greek  schools. 

2  Acts  xiii.,  xvi.,  xxiv.  sq. 
»  Acts  xxii.  28. 

4  That  he  was  in  comparative  poverty  during  at  least  a  part  of  his  mission- 
ary career  (1  Thess.  ii.  9 ;  Phil.  iv.  16)  proves  nothing  to  the  contrary.  (See 
Ramsay:  St.  Paul,  the  Traveller  and  Roman  Citizen,  p.  34  sq.) 


THE  CHRISTIANITY   OF   PAUL  115 

intellectual  tendencies  which  were  abroad  in  the  Greek 
world  of  the  period.  That  he  was  consciously  the  pupil 
of  Hellenic  or  Hellenistic  thinkers,  or  that  he  was  familiar 
with  their  writings,  is  altogether  unlikely ; 1  but  that  he 
imbibed  something  of  the  spirit  which  voiced  itself  in 
them  cannot  be  denied. 

But  though  Paul  was  a  Hellenist,  and  though  he  felt 
the  influence  of  the  world  at  large,  and  absorbed  some- 
thing of  its  spirit,  he  was,  above  all,  a  "  Hebrew  of  He- 
brews,"2 sprung  evidently  from  strict  Jews  and  himself 
thoroughly  steeped  in  the  traditions  and  prejudices  of  his 
fathers.  He  was  educated  in  Jerusalem,  as  was  natural 
for  the  son  of  parents  of  wealth  and  orthodox  principles, 
and  under  the  tutelage  of  the  greatest  rabbinic  authorities 
of  the  age.  His  thorough  Jewish  training  appears  plainly 
in  all  his  writings.  He  thought  like  a  Hebrew  and  wrote 
like  a  Hebrew.  His  familiarity  with  the  Scriptures, 
which  constituted  the  basis  of  Jewish  education,  was  very 
great,  as  was  also  his  acquaintance  with  the  interpreta- 
tions of  the  schools.  He  used  the  Scriptures  throughout 
his  life  just  as  they  were  used  by  all  the  Jewish  theolo- 
gians of  his  day.  There  is  in  his  epistles  the  same  em- 
phasis upon  the  divine  character  of  the  sacred  writings, 
resulting  in  their  elevation  almost  to  an  equality  with 
God  himself;  and  the  same  idea  of  their  inspiration  which 
prevailed  in  the  Jewish  schools,  and  which  led  to  the 
treatment  of  the  Scriptures  as  a  mere  collection  of  oracles, 
that  might  be  torn  from  their  context  and  applied  to  any 
subject  and  in  any  way  that  seemed  desirable,  and  which 
led  also  inevitably  to  the  use  of  the  allegorical  and  typical 
method  of  interpretation.  Paul,  to  be  sure,  was  very 
much  freer  than  most  of  his  contemporaries  from  exegeti- 
cal  vagaries,  and  his  Scripture  interpretation  was  compara- 
tively sober.  But  there  are  not  a  few  notable  instances  in 
which  he  follows  the  common  custom,  and  shows  in  a 

1  Pfleiderer   (Paulinismus,  2te  Auflage,  S.  27  sq.)  maintains  that   Paul 
knew  and  used  the  Hellenistic  Book  of  Wisdom,  but  the  parallelisms  which  he 
points  out  hardly  do  more  than  show  that  Paul  felt  to  some  extent  the  same 
influences  that  were  felt  by  the  author  of  that  book. 

2  Phil.  iii.  5, 


116  THE   APOSTOLIC    AGE 

striking  way  the  influence  of  his  training.  Thus,  in 
1  Cor.  ix.  9,  he  interprets  the  command,  "  Thou  shalt  not 
muzzle  the  ox  when  he  treadeth  the  corn,"  as  referring  not 
to  oxen,  but  only  to  Christian  apostles,  on  the  ground 
that  God  cannot  care  for  mere  brutes ;  and  in  Gal.  iv.  22 
sq.,  he  makes  Hagar  represent  the  covenant  of  law  and 
Sarah  the  covenant  of  grace.1  In  the  famous  passage, 
Gal.  iii.  16,  we  have  a  striking  example  of  the  common 
rabbinic  method  of  building  an  elaborate  argument  upon 
the  form  of  a  single  word.  The  Old  Testament  statement 
that  the  promises  were  made  to  Abraham  and  to  his  seed, 
is  interpreted  to  refer  to  Christ,  because  the  passage  says 
"seed"  and  not  "seeds."  The  subtle  dialectic  method  of 
argument,  which  Paul  employs  so  freely,  especially  in 
Galatians  and  Romans,  is  also  characteristically  rabbinic, 
and  he  repeats  without  question  in  his  epistles  not  a  few 
traditions  which  were  current  in  the  Jewish  schools  of  the 
day.2  He  shows  himself,  in  fact,  a  man  well  versed  in 
rabbinic  modes  of  thought  and  thoroughly  familiar  with 
rabbinic  lore. 

But  Paul  was  not  simply  a  Jewish  scholar;  he  was  a 
profound,  original,  and  independent  thinker.  In  spite  of 
his  rabbinic  training,  which  was  certainly  not  calculated 
to  encourage  intellectual  boldness  and  self-reliance,  he 
was  always  alive  to  the  teachings  of  his  own  intuition  and 
experience,  fearless  in  following  their  leading,  quick  to 
adjust  traditional  notions  to  the  truth  thus  learned. 
There  was  nothing  loose  or  slipshod,  nothing  vague  and 
unformed  in  his  thinking.  His  mental  processes  were 
close,  compact,  and  vigorous,  his  vision  clear  and  keen, 
his  grasp  firm.  He  could  not  be  content  with  half-truths, 
or  with  truths  half  understood.  He  must  view  them  in 
their  completeness,  determine  their  bearing,  yield  them 
their  due  weight  and  influence.  He  never  confounded 
essentials  and  non-essentials,  or  lost  sight  of  the  main 
point  in  his  interest  in  side  issues.  The  great  principles 

1  Compare  also  his  use  of  the  Scriptures  for  types  of  Christianity  and  Chris- 
tian truth,  as  for  instance  in  1  Cor.  x.  1  sq.  j  2  Cor.  iii.  13  sq. 

2  Cf.  especially  1  Cor.  x.  4,  where  Pan\  speaks  of  the  rock  that  followed  the 
children  of  Israel. 


THE  CHRISTIANITY   OF   PAUL  117 

upon  which  his  life  was  based  stood  out  always  clear 
before  his  mind,  and  gave  form  and  direction  to  all  he 
thought  and  said  and  did. 

But  Paul  was  not  only  a  scholar  and  a  thinker;  he  was 
a  religious  devotee,  concerned  not  simply  to  know,  but  to 
do,  the  will  of  God,  and  not  simply  to  observe  the  divine 
law  himself,  but  to  secure  its  observance  by  others  as 
well.  Even  before  his  conversion,  he  desired  to  be  not 
merely  a  rabbi,  but  a  missionary;  to  devote  his  life  to  the 
propagation  of  true  righteousness  and  to  the  overthrow  of 
everything  which  in  any  way  interfered  with  its  advance, 
and  which  in  any  way  hindered  the  people  from  giving 
themselves  undividedly  to  the  practice  of  the  law.  There 
can  be  little  doubt  that  he  was  one  of  those  who  were  look- 
ing forward  to  the  coming  of  the  promised  Messianic  king- 
dom, and  that  he  believed  with  the  best  spirits  of  his  age 
that  its  establishment  depended  upon  the  piety  of  God's 
chosen  people.  He  took  religion  very  seriously,  and  he 
wished  others  to  do  the  same.  It  was  no  light  matter  to 
him.  It  outweighed  everything  else  and  controlled  all 
his  thinking,  feeling,  and  acting.  The  ordinary  con- 
formity to  the  law  with  which  most  of  his  contemporaries 
contented  themselves,  and  upon  which  they  complacently 
rested  their  hope  of  salvation,  did  not  satisfy  him.  The 
contempt  with  which  he  regarded  their  easy-going  ways 
appears  in  the  strong  words  he  uses  in  Gal.  v.  3  and  vi. 
13.  Though  he  had  studied  under  the  elder  Gamaliel, 
whose  spirit  seems  to  have  been  more  liberal  and  tolerant 
than  most  of  his  compeers,1  Paul  himself  grew  up  a  Phari- 
see of  the  most  bigoted  and  zealous  type.  His  natural 
character  reveals  itself  in  the  zeal  with  which  he  put  his 
principles  into  practice.  The  most  marked  features  in 
that  character  were  singleness  of  purpose  and  intensity 
of  temper.  What  he  believed,  he  believed  with  all  his 
heart;  what  he  did,  he  did  with  all  his  might.  There 
was  nothing  passive,  lukewarm,  or  indifferent  about  him 

1  Acts  xxii.  3,  v.  34  sq.  On  Rabbi  Gamaliel  the  elder,  so-called  to  dis- 
tinguish him  from  his  grandson,  Rabbi  Gamaliel  the  younger,  see  Schiirer, 
I.e.  ii.  S.  300  sq.  (Eng.  Trans.,  Div.  II.  Vol.  I.  p.  363  sq.). 


118  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

in  any  of  his  relations.  The  whole  man  was  in  every 
conviction  and  in  every  act.  There  was  no  dissipation  of 
energy,  no  scattering  of  forces.  Whether  as  a  Pharisee 
or  as  a  Christian,  he  was  dominated  by  a  single  aim,  and 
he  threw  himself  into  its  accomplishment  with  an  earnest- 
ness which  could  brook  no  opposition,  and  with  an  aban- 
don which  admitted  no  thought  of  self-interest.  With 
all  his  originality,  freshness,  and  depth  of  thought,  he 
was  essentially  a  man  of  one  idea,  willing  to  sacrifice 
everything  to  it,  willing  to  die  in  its  behalf.  He  was  of 
the  stuff  that  martyrs  are  made  of,  and  he  would  have 
died  as  readily  at  the  hand  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  as  he 
did  at  the  hand  of  Nero. 

When  Paul  first  came  into  contact  with  the  Christians 
we  do  not  know,  but  it  may  well  be  that  he  had  been  for 
some  time  absent  from  Jerusalem,  and  that  he  returned 
thither  only  shortly  before  the  execution  of  Stephen.  It 
is  thus  easiest  to  explain  the  outbreak  against  Stephen 
and  his  fellows,  in  which  he  seems  to  have  been  a  prime 
mover.  He  may  have  heard  the  Christians  repeating 
utterances  which  seemed  to  him  subversive  of  the  law 
of  God  and  the  traditions  of  the  fathers,  and  he  was  per- 
haps not  aware  that  for  a  year  or  more  the  followers  of  the 
man  who  had  spoken  such  dangerous  words  had  lived  the 
lives  of  faithful  and  consistent  Jews,  and  that  they  had 
shown  no  sign  of  understanding  the  words  of  their  Master 
as  Paul  understood  them.  It  was  therefore  natural  for 
him  to  judge  of  the  movement  solely  from  the  conse- 
quences which  seemed  to  be  involved  in  the  teachings  of 
its  founder.  And  yet  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  Paul 
would  have  been  content  to  leave  Christianity  alone  even 
had  he  known  that  its  adherents  remained  true  to  Juda- 
ism; for,  clear-sighted  as  he  was,  he  must  have  seen  that 
the  time  would  come,  if  it  had  not  yet  come,  when  the 
teachings  of  Jesus  would  have  their  natural  effect,  and  he 
must  have  been  anxious  to  stamp  them  out  at  once.  But 
however  that  may  be,  he  was  at  any  rate  one  of  the  chief 
if  not  the  chief  instigator  of  the  attack  upon  Stephen;  for 
the  executioners  of  the  latter  laid  their  clothes  at  his  feet, 


THE  CHRISTIANITY   OF   PAUL  119 

implying  that  he  was  the  principal  witness  against  the 
accused.1  As  a  native  of  a  foreign  city,  he  would  natu- 
rally be  at  home  in  one  of  the  Hellenistic  synagogues  in 
Jerusalem,  and  it  is  possible  that  he  became  acquainted 
with  Stephen  there  and  was  the  first  to  perceive  the  revo- 
lutionary tendency  of  the  teachings  of  Jesus  as  rehearsed 
by  him  and  his  fellows.  Anxious  as  he  was  to  serve  the 
Lord,  we  may  think  of  him  as  eagerly  welcoming  this 
offered  opportunity  to  show  his  devotion  to  God  and  to 
exercise  his  zeal  for  the  religion  of  his  fathers.  But  he 
did  not  rest  with  the  execution  of  Stephen.  He  felt  him- 
self called  to  carry  the  war  even  beyond  Jerusalem,  and 
to  put  an  end  to  the  growth  of  the  pernicious  sect  in  for- 
eign parts.  He  was  very  likely  particularly  interested 
in  the  progress  of  Judaism  in  the  heathen  world.  The 
Pharisees  were  naturally  proselytizers,  and  as  a  native 
of  a  foreign  city,  who  was  in  touch  to  some  extent  with 
the  life  of  the  world  at  large,  Paul  must  have  been  even 
more  interested  than  his  brethren  of  Jerusalem  in  the 
conversion  of  the  Roman  Empire  to  the  Jewish  faith.  If 
that  was  the  case,  he  could  not  but  be  apprehensive  of 
the  consequences  of  the  spread  of  Christianity  among  the 
Hellenists.  It  may  well  be,  therefore,  that  his  mission  to 
Damascus  was  intended  only  as  the  beginning  of  a  vigor- 
ous campaign  against  the  Christians  wherever  they  had 
secured  a  foothold ;  and  that  he  had  deliberately  determined 
to  devote  not  a  few  days  merely,  but  his  life,  to  a  work 
which  was  not  to  be  abandoned  until  it  was  complete,  and 
which  he  realized  could  not  be  accomplished  without  long 
effort. 

Such  an  unconditional  devotion  of  himself  to  the  work 
of  exterminating  Christianity  seems  alone  to  explain  his 
immediate  dedication  of  his  entire  life  to  its  advancement, 
when  his  conversion  took  place.  That  conversion  was 
one  of  the  most  remarkable  transformations  in  history. 
Paul  gives  us  no  detailed  account  of  the  circumstances 
under  which  it  occurred,2  but  in  Gal.  i.  12  sq.  he  refers 
to  it  in  such  a  way  as  to  indicate  with  sufficient  clearness 

1  Acts  vii.  68.  2  At  least  not  in  his  Epistles. 


120  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

its  cause  and  its  nature.1  In  the  passage  in  question  he 
was  emphasizing  the  fact  over  against  those  who  were 
attacking  the  validity  of  his  apostolate  and  the  truth  of 
his  Gospel,  that  he  had  received  his  Gospel  not  from  man, 
but  from  God.  "Neither  did  I  receive  it  from  man,"  he 
says,  "nor  was  I  taught  it,  but  it  came  to  me  through 
revelation  of  Jesus  Christ."  And  then  a  little  farther  on 
he  adds :  "  But  when  it  was  the  good  pleasure  of  God,  who 
separated  me  from  my  mother's  womb,  and  called  me 
through  his  grace  to  reveal  his  Son  in  me  .  .  .  imme- 
diately I  conferred  not  with  flesh  and  blood."  Evi- 
dently it  was  an  immediate  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ,  the 
Son  of  God,  that  made  a  Christian  of  him.  With  the 
words  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  agrees  the  statement 
of  1  Cor.  xv.  8,  "  And  last  of  all,  as  unto  one  born  out  of 
due  time,  he  [that  is  Christ]  appeared  to  me  also."  Paul, 

1  The  Book  of  Acts  contains  three  accounts  of  a  vision  of  Christ  vouchsafed 
to  Paul  upon  his  way  to  Damascus,  whither  he  was  going  to  carry  on  the  war 
against  the  Christians,  which  he  had  begun  in  Jerusalem.  The  first  (ix.  3  sq.) 
is  in  the  words  of  the  author  of  the  book;  the  other  two  (xxii.  6sq.,  xxvi. 
12  sq.)  occur  in  speeches  of  Paul  which  he  records.  There  are  some  differ- 
ences between  the  accounts,  but  the  verbal  agreements  are  so  close  that  the 
interdependence  of  the  three  is  assumed  by  most  scholars.  The  account  in 
chap.  xxvi.  is  the  simplest  of  the  three,  and  bears  marks  of  originality  over 
against  the  others  (see  below,  p.  350) ;  and  as  it  occurs  in  a  setting  whose 
vividness  and  verisimilitude  are  unsurpassed,  it  is  altogether  likely  that  the 
author  found  it  in  his  sources  and  that  it  constituted  the  original  upon 
which,  with  the  help  of  oral  tradition,  he  built  the  other  accounts  in  chaps,  ix. 
and  xxii.  At  the  same  time  it  is  clear  that  he  made  some  additions  even  in 
chap.  xxvi.  (See  below,  p.  355.)  The  most  important  fact  which  the  author 
added  in  chaps,  ix.  and  xxii.  was  the  agency  of  Ananias.  Doubtless  such 
a  man  played  a  prominent  part  in  connection  with  Paul's  early  days  as  a 
Christian  disciple,  though  just  what  that  part  was  is  not  altogether  clear. 
On  the  relation  of  the  three  accounts  to  each  other  see  especially  Zinimer  in 
the  Zeitschrift  fur  wissenschaftliche  Theolof/ie,  1882,  S.  465  sq. ;  Wendt  in 
Meyer's  Commentary,  7th  edition,  S.  217  sq. ;  Sorof:  Die  Entstehung  der 
Apostelgeschichte,  S.  6(5  sq. ;  Spitta:  Die  Apostelgeschichte,  S.  270  sq.,  and 
Jiingst :  Quellen  der  Apostelgeschichte,  S.  83  sq. 

Various  difficulties  in  the  three  accounts  have  been  pointed  out  by  critics. 
It  has  been  maintained  for  instance  that  the  statement  in  ix.  17  that  Paul 
received  the  Holy  Spirit  through  the  laying  on  of  Ananias'  hands  is  incon- 
sistent with  his  own  account  of  his  conversion.  The  descriptions  of  Paul's 
visit  to  Jerusalem  after  his  conversion,  in  ix.  26  and  xxii.  17  sq.,  have  also 
been  pronounced  incompatible  with  his  own  statement  in  Gal.  i.  18  sq.  (cf. 
also  xxvi.  20,  where  the  same  idea  of  the  visit  appears).  In  view  of  such  dif- 
ficulties as  these,  it  is  safer  to  confine  ourselves  to  Paul's  own  account,  and 
this  may  the  more  readily  be  done  because  he  gives  all  that  is  essential  to  an 
understanding  of  the  event. 


THE   CHRISTIANITY   OF   PAUL  121 

therefore,  believed  that  at  a  particular  period  in  his  life 
the  risen  Christ  appeared  to  him,  and  to  that  appearance 
he  owed  his  Christian  faith.1  In  order  to  understand 
what  such  an  appearance  must  mean  to  him,  and  what 
effect  it  must  have  upon  him,  it  is  necessary  to  acquaint 
ourselves  as  fully  as  possible  with  his  state  of  mind  at  the 
time  the  great  event  took  place,  and  to  inquire  whether 
he  had  been  in  any  way  prepared  for  it  by  his  previous 
experience. 

The  Galatian  passage  shows  that  Paul  conceived  of  his 
conversion  to  Christianity  as  a  sudden  and  abrupt  event, 
as  a  transformation  effected  not  by  the  influence  or  in- 
struction of  men,  but  by  the  direct  interposition  and  sole 
agency  of  God.  The  passage  also  apparently  excludes  the 
idea  that  his  conversion  was  the  result  of  a  gradual  change 
in  his  own  mind,  or  the  consummation  of  a  process  begin- 
ning with  doubts  and  fears  as  to  the  truth  of  the  Chris- 
tians' claims,  and  as  to  the  wisdom  and  justice  of  his  own 
course  of  action,  and  terminating  in  his  final  decision  to 
accept  Christianity.  Such  a  gradual  process  seems  to  be 
ruled  out  by  his  own  statements.  He  was  at  any  rate  not 
conscious  before  the  critical  moment  came  of  any  leaning 
toward  the  new  faith,  or  of  any  lack  of  decision  and  deter- 
mination in  his  attitude  of  hostility.  The  event  seemed 
to  him  absolutely  sudden  and  unheralded ;  at  one  moment 
he  was  the  determined  enemy  of  Jesus,  at  the  next  he  was 
his  disciple.  Nevertheless,  though  it  is  clear  that  Paul 
thus  pictured  his  conversion,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
his  experience  had  been  such  not  as  to  effect,  but  certainly 
to  prepare  him  for,  the  change.  Such  a  transformation 
necessitates  some  preparation;  without  it  the  event  is 
psychologically  inconceivable.  The  preparation  need  not 
be  direct,  but  some  preparation  there  must  be.  What  it 
actually  was,  we  may  learn  from  Rom.  vii.  7  sq.,  a  pas- 
sage which  is  evidently  a  leaf  out  of  Paul's  own  experi- 
ence before  his  conversion.  It  is  clear  from  that  passage 
that,  zealous  as  Paul  was  in  his  observance  of  the  Jewish 

1  The  reference  to  Damascus  in  Gal.  i.  17  indicates  that  the  appearance 
took  place  in  or  near  that  city,  as  stated  in  the  Acts. 


122  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE 

law,  and  blameless  as  his  conduct  was  when  measured  by 
an  external  standard,  he  had  become  conscious  that  all 
his  efforts  to  attain  true  righteousness  were  a  complete 
failure.  When  this  consciousness  forced  itself  upon  him 
we  do  not  know,  but  it  was  evidently  the  result  of  his 
perception  of  the  fact,  which  was  entirely  overlooked  by 
the  majority  of  his  contemporaries,  and  may  have  been 
long  overlooked  by  Paul  himself,  that  inner  as  well  as 
outer  sins,  sins  of  heart  as  well  as  of  deed,  were  forbidden 
by  the  law ;  that  the  tenth  commandment  made  covetous- 
ness  and  lust  a  crime,  even  though  the  lust  or  the  covet- 
ousness  never  manifested  itself  in  acts  of  sensuality  or  of 
dishonesty.1  That  Paul,  trained  as  he  was  in  the  super- 
ficial, legal  conceptions  of  the  Pharisees  of  his  day,  should 
have  recognized  this  fact,  is  a  mark  of  the  profoundness 
of  his  ethical  nature,  and  distinguishes  him  from  most  of 
his  fellows.  Only  a  great  religious  genius  could  thus 
have  penetrated  beneath  the  husk  of  formality  to  the  vital 
kernel  within.  It  is  clear  that  he  was  no  ordinary  Phari- 
see. The  condemnation  which  Jesus  passed  upon  the 
Pharisees  as  a  class  could  not  have  been  pronounced  upon 
him.  Even  though  a  Pharisee,  he  was  a  man  after  Christ's 
own  heart.  Though  he  apparently  knew  nothing  as  yet 
about  Jesus'  teaching,  he  had  reached  the  principle  of 
which  Jesus  had  made  so  much,  that  all  external  observ- 
ance of  the  law  is  worthless  unless  it  be  based  upon  the 
obedience  of  the  heart. 

But  the  fact  once  recognized,  that  the  law  demands 
more  than  mere  external  conformity,  that  it  demands  in 
fact  the  complete  purification  of  all  the  thoughts  and 
desires,  a  struggle  was  begun  whose  intensity,  if  the 
matter  were  taken  seriously,  as  Paul  took  it,  must  grow 
constantly  more  awful,  as  the  futility  of  all  efforts  thus 
to  bring  one's  whole  nature  into  harmony  with  God's  holy 
will  became  increasingly  apparent.  But  this  struggle 
had  the  effect  of  leading  Paul  to  recognize,  not  as  a  matter 
of  theory  merely,  but  of  the  most  vivid  and  bitter  experi- 
ence, a  dualism  within  his  own  nature,  a  dualism  between 

1  See  Bruce,  St.  Paul's  Conception  of  Christianity,  p.  28  sq. 


THE  CHRISTIANITY  OF   PAUL  123 

the  will  on  the  one  hand  and  the  passions  and  desires  on 
the  other.  To  will  was  present  with  him,  but  not  to  do 
that  which  he  willed;  to  keep  his  affections  centred  always 
and  only  on  that  which  he  knew  to  be  holy  and  right,  this 
he  found  impossible.  "  The  good  which  I  would  I  do  not," 
he  cries,  "  but  the  evil  which  I  would  not  that  I  practise."  1 
But  this  conscious  schism  between  will  and  deed  drove 
Paul  to  the  assumption  that  the  unruly  passions  and 
desires  which  his  will  could  not  control  were  due  not  to 
himself,  but  to  sin,  which  was  dwelling  in  him.  "So 
then  it  is  no  more  I  that  do  it,"  he  says,  "but  sin  which 
dwelleth  in  me."2  But  whence  came  this  sin?  How 
were  its  existence  and  its  power  to  be  explained?  Paul's 
answer  to  this  question  is  of  the  very  greatest  significance. 
He  found  the  explanation  of  the  sin  within  him  in  the 
fleshly  nature  which  he  possessed  in  common  with  all  the 
race.  "For  I  know  that  in  me,  that  is  in  my  flesh,  dwell- 
eth no  good  thing."3  The  word  "flesh,"  or  adpj;,  seems 
to  have  meant  to  Paul  primarily  the  material  substance  of 
which  the  human  body  is  composed,4  and  it  is  accordingly 
frequently  used  by  him  for  the  body  itself.5  He  also 
employs  it  in  an  entirely  natural,  though  secondary  and 
derived  sense,  well  known  among  the  Jews,  to  denote  not 
the  material  body  alone,  but  the  whole  man  as  a  living 
person.6  But  he  even  goes  further  than  this  and  makes 
use  of  the  term  very  commonly  not  for  the  individual  man 

1  Rom.  vii.  19.  2  Rom.  vii.  17,  21.  3  Rom.  vii.  18. 

4  Cf.  1  Cor.  xv.  50;  Col.  i.  22 ;  also  1  Cor.  xv.  39,  where  the  flesh  of  beasts, 
birds,  and  fishes,  as  well  as  of  men,  is  spoken  of.  Upon  the  various  meanings 
of  the  word  <ja.p£  in  Paul,  see  Thayer's  Lexicon,  s.v.  For  fuller  discussions 
of  Paul's  use  of  the  word,  see  especially,  in  addition  to  the  books  referred  to 
on  p.  113,  Holsten :  Die  Bedeutung  des  Wortes  crdp%  im  Lehrbegriffe  des 
Paulus,  1855  (republished  in  his  volume,  Zum  EvangeUum  des  Paulus  und 
des  Petrns,  1868)  ;  Wendt :  Die  Begriffe  Fleisch  und  Geist  im  biblischen 
Sprachgebrauch  (1878)  ;  Dickson:  St.  Paul's  Use  of  the  Terms  Flesh  and  Spirit 
(1883),  a  work  which  is  especially  valuable  for  its  elaborate  presentation  and 
criticism  of  the  views  of  others ;  and  Gloel :  Der  heilige  Geist  in  der  Heilsver- 
kundigung  des  Paulus  (1888). 

s  Rom.  ii.  28;  1  Cor.  vi.  16,  vii.  28;  2  Cor.  iv.  11,  x.  3,  xii.  7;  Gal.  ii.  20,  iv. 
13,  14,  vi.  13. 

6  Cf.  Rom.  iii.  20 ;  1  Cor.  i.  29 ;  Gal.  ii.  16,  where  the  word  <rdp£  is  equivalent 
to  dvdpuirbs.  The  Hebrew  "^3  is  very  frequently  used  in  the  same  way  in  the 
Old  Testament.  Cf.  also  2  Cor.  vii.  5,  where  "our  flesh  "  is  hardly  more  than 
a  circumlocution  for  "  we." 


124  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

simply,  but  also  for  human  nature  as  such.  Whatever 
man's  faculties  or  endowments,  Paul  pictures  him  in  his 
natural  state  as  a  fleshly  being,  a  being  to  whose  nature 
may  properly  be  given  the  name  "flesh."  And  so  it  is  the 
word  a-dpt;  which  he  commonly  employs  when  he  contrasts, 
as  he  does  so  continually  in  his  epistles,  the  nature  of  man 
with  the  nature  of  God,  man's  nature  being  fleshly  and 
God's  nature  being  spiritual;  and  it  is  this  use  of  the 
word  that  is  most  characteristic  of  him.1 

But  according  to  Paul  flesh,  or  human  nature,  in  con- 
trast with  spirit,  or  the  divine  nature,  is  evil  in  its  present 
state,  whatever  may  have  been  true  of  it  originally.  God 
alone  is  holy;  man  is  sinful  always  and  everywhere.2 
But  the  evil  flesh  or  nature  expresses  itself  necessarily  in 
desires  or  lusts,3  and  those  desires,  being  the  expression 
of  an  evil  nature,  are  evil  or  sinful,  and  that  too  even 
though  a  person  may  not  yet  have  come  to  self-conscious- 
ness and  may  not  yet  have  taken  cognizance  of  them.4 
Paul  thus  conceives  of  a  sin  fulness  or  corruption  of  nature 
which  may  lie  entirely  without  consciousness,  and  in  which 
the  personality  may  have  no  part.5  But  this  natural  sin- 
fulness  becomes  active  sin  or  wilful  transgression  as  soon 
as  a  person  comes  to  a  knowledge  of  law,  and  is  thus  in  a 
position  to  distinguish  between  right  and  wrong.6  By 
law  in  these  cases  Paul  means  not  merely  the  Mosaic 
law,  although  as  the  great  objective  embodiment  of  the 
law  of  God  it  is  chiefly  in  his  mind,  but  law  in  general. 

1  It  is  a  mistake,  nevertheless,  to  see  in  this  use  of  the  word,  as  many  do, 
an  entire  departure  from  its  original  significance,  and  to  suppose  that  in 
employing  it  in  an  ethical  or  religious  sense  Paul  lost  sight  altogether  of  the 
conception  of  flesh  as  the  material  substance  which  goes  to  compose  the 
human  body.    It  is  true  that  as  the  word  is  commonly  employed  by  him,  it 
takes  on  a  derived  and  distinctly  ethical  meaning  which  makes  it  more  than 
mere  material  substance,  but  it  is  evident  from  many  passages  that  the  origi- 
nal and  literal  significance  always  attached  to  it  more  or  less  distinctly,  and 
that  Paul  never  rid  himself  completely  of  the  impression  of  that  significance. 
Cf.  e.g.  Rom.  vii.  18,  viii.  3,  13;  2  Cor.  x.  3  sq.;  Gal.  iii.  3,  v.  13  sq.,  vi.  8. 

2  Cf.  Rom.  v.  12  sq. 

8  tTTrtvulai,  Rom.  vii.  7 ;  Gal.  v.  16,  24. 

*  Cf.  Rom.  vii.  7  sq. 

6  This  conception  of  sinfulness  of  nature,  made  possible  by  Paul's  thorough- 
going realism,  underlies  all  his  thinking,  and  he  cannot  be  understood  at  all 
unless  it  is  distinctly  recognized. 

»  Cf.  Rom.  iii.  20,  iv.  15,  v.  13,  vii.  7,  etc. 


THE   CHRISTIANITY   OF   PAUL  125 

For  it  is  clear  from  more  than  one  passage  that  he  thinks 
of  the  Gentiles  as  under  law  as  well  as  the  Jews,  even 
though  they  have  never  known  anything  of  the  Mosaic 
legislation.1  Heathen,  then,  are  actual  transgressors  as 
well  as  Jews,  and  they  first  became  such  when  they  ac- 
quired a  consciousness  of  the  law  of  God  written  in  their 
hearts.2  Moreover,  according  to  Paul,  subjective  sin  is 
universal,  just  as  the  objective  sinfulness  of  the  flesh  is 
universal.  All  men  that  have  reached  years  of  discretion 
not  simply  possess  an  evil  nature,  but  are  actual  and  con- 
scious transgressors ; 3  all  men  are  slaves  of  their  flesh. 
Their  understanding  perceives  what  is  right,  and  perceiv- 
ing it,  they  may  wish  to  do  it,  but  they  cannot.  Their 
evil  nature  is  too  strong  for  them,  and  they  do  evil  in 
spite  of  their  knowledge  of  the  good  and  their  desire  to 
do  the  good.  Hence  arises  the  terrible  struggle  which 
Paul  depicts  in  the  light  of  his  own  experience  in  Rom.  vii., 
a  struggle  between  himself  as  a  conscious  person,  knowing 
and  approving  the  good,  and  his  human  nature  or  flesh 
with  its  inherent  corruption  ;  a  struggle  which  results  in 
his  continual  defeat,  until  at  last  realizing  its  hopelessness, 
he  cries  in  despair,  "  O  wretched  man  that  I  am !  who 
shall  deliver  me  out  of  this  body  of  death?"4 

It  is  exceedingly  significant  that  Paul  does  not  ask 
for  forgiveness,  but  for  deliverance ;  and  for  deliverance, 
moreover,  not  from  the  penalty  of  sin,  but  from  the  source 
of  sin.  Paul  was  always  thoroughgoing  in  his  conception 
7  of  sin  and  its  effects.  He  never  thought  of  death  as  a 
penalty  arbitrarily  inflicted  upon  the  sinner  by  God,  and 
which  God  therefore  could  remove ;  but  he  thought  of  it 
as  the  necessary  and  inevitable  fruit  of  sin  or  corruption. 
That  which  is  evil  must  perish.  Evil  nature  therefore 
must  die.5  There  was  no  way  then  to  escape  from  death, 
except  by  escaping  from  the  flesh  whose  condition  doomed 

1  Rom.  i.  19  sq.,  32,  ii.  8  sq.,  15.  «  Rom.  iii.  9  sq.,  v.  12. 

2  Rom.  ii.  15.  *  Rom.  vii.  24. 

s  Paul,  indeed,  dealt  almost  wholly  in  terms  of  nature  rather  than  of 
personality  and  in  real  rather  than  legal  conceptions.  One  cannot  speak 
of  inflicting  punishment  upon  an  evil  nature  except  by  an  accommodation 
of  terms.  Only  a  conscious  person  can,  strictly  speaking,  be  punished.  But 
an  evil  or  corrupt  nature  must  of  necessity  die. 


126  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

it  to  death.  But  how  could  a  man  escape  from  the  flesh 
and  live  ?  The  common  Jewish  belief  in  the  resurrection 
which  was  prevalent  in  Paul's  day,  afforded  no  answer  to 
the  question,  for  it  was  a  belief  in  the  resurrection  of  the 
flesh.  Indeed,  to  the  ordinary  Hebrew  mind  no  life  seemed 
possible  except  life  in  the  flesh.  Bat  to  rise  again  in  the 
flesh,  as  Paul  clearly  saw,  would  be  no  blessing,  but  a  curse. 
To  rise  again  in  the  flesh  must  seem  to  him,  indeed,  im- 
possible, for  the  flesh  is  evil,  and  evil  always  means  death. 
There  was  no  way  known  to  Paul,  therefore,  to  escape 
from  the  flesh  and  live.  The  struggle  through  which  he 
had  been  passing,  a  struggle  to  which  his  profoundly 
ethical  nature  had  given  a  peculiar  and  awful  intensity, 
had  culminated  in  utter  despair.1  It  was  while  he  was  in 
the  depths  of  that  despair  that  the  vision  of  the  risen 
Jesus  was  seen  by  him.  The  cardinal  fact  about  it  was 
that  it  was  the  vision  of  a  spiritual  being.  It  was  not  a 
man  of  flesh  and  blood  that  appeared  to  Paul,  but  a  spirit; 
it  was  not  an  earthly  but  a  heavenly  apparition  that  he 
saw.2  And  yet  Paul  at  once  recognized  that  spirit  as  the 
risen  Jesus.  What  must  have  been  the  effect  of  such 
recognition?  On  the  one  hand,  of  course,  the  immediate 
conviction  that  Jesus  was  what  he  had  claimed  to  be,  the 
Messiah  of  God ;  on  the  other  hand,  the  realization  of  the 
pregnant  fact  that  this  Messiah  Jesus,  though  possessed, 
as  a  man,  of  the  same  flesh  as  other  men,3  had  yet  escaped 
death,  and  that  he  had  escaped  it  in  the  very  way  that 
Paul  had  been  driven  to  feel  was  the  only  way,  by  escap- 
ing the  flesh  itself.  He  had  died  a  man  in  the  flesh;  he 
was  now  living  the  life  of  a  glorified  spirit.  But  with 
his  rigorous  conception  of  sin  and  its  consequences,  it 
was  clear  to  Paul  that  such  continued  spiritual  existence 
presupposed  a  life  of  absolute  holiness  on  the  part  of  Jesus ; 4 

1  That  Romans  vii.  24  represents  the  condition  of  his  mind  in  the  days 
immediately  preceding  his  conversion  there  can  be  no  doubt ;  and  it  is  pos- 
sible that  the  unusual  zeal  with  which  he  had  recently  been  giving  himself  to 
the  practice  of  religion,  and  the  tremendous  and  restless  energy  with  which 
he  was  devoting  himself  to  the  persecution  of  the  Christians,  may  have  been 
due  in  part  to  this  inner  struggle. 

2  Cf .  2  Cor.  iv.  6 ;  Gal.  i  16.  8  Cf.  Gal.  iv.  4 ;  Phil.  ii.  7 ;  Rom.  viii.  3. 
4  Cf.  Rom.  v.  18  sq.,  xv.  3;  2  Cor.  v.  21 ;  Phil.  ii.  5  sq. 


THE  CHRISTIANITY  OF  PAUL  127 

for  had  he  been  unholy,  he  could  not  have  escaped  the 
grasp  of  death.1  There  must  have  been  something  in 
him  then  stronger  than  the  flesh  which  could  conquer  and 
rise  above  it.  But  in  that  case  he  must  have  been  more 
than  an  ordinary  man ; 2  for  all  men  are  sinners.3  It 
seemed  to  Paul,  indeed,  that  he  must  have  been  nothing 
less  than  a  heavenly  being,  endowed  with  the  Spirit  of 
God.4  As  such  a  being  it  was  possible  for  him,  as  it  was 
not  possible  for  a  mere  man,  to  overcome  the  flesh,  and 
to  pass  through  death  into  a  spiritual  life  released  from 
the  flesh,  the  life  he  had  enjoyed  with  God  before  his 
incarnation.5 

Thus  had  Jesus,  who  appeared  to  Paul  on  the  way  to 
Damascus,  been  delivered  from  the  supreme  evil,  death, 
and  attained  that  life  for  which  Paul  longed  so  earnestly, 
and  to  secure  which  he  had  struggled  all  in  vain.  But 
why  had  Jesus  the  Messiah  done  all  this  ?  Why  had  he 
come  down  from  heaven,  assumed  human  flesh,  suffered 
and  died,  arid  returned  to  the  place  from  whence  he  came  ? 
But  one  answer  was  possible  to  Paul  in  the  light  of  his 
own  experience,  and  under  the  pressure  of  his  own  need. 
Christ  had  done  what  he  did  not  in  order  to  free  himself, 
but  to  free  others  from  the  burden  of  sin  and  death,  and 
to  give  them  that  life  with  God  which  he  himself  enjoyed. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  in  the  vision  which  broke  upon 
Paul's  startled  gaze  on  the  road  to  Damascus,  the  risen 
Jesus  appeared  to  him,  not  merely  as  one  who  should  usher 
in  the  promised  kingdom,  but  also,  and  especially,  as  one 

1  Rom.  v.  12  sq.,  21,  vi.  16,  21,  vii.  13  sq. 

2  For  the  belief  that  Jesus  was  more  than  human  was  furnished  a  sugges- 
tion in  the  idea,  which  was  not  altogether  unknown  among  the  Jews  of  Paul's 
day,  that  the  Messiah  belonged  to  a  higher  order  of  being  than  man,  that  he 
had  an  existence  in  heaven  before  his  appearance  on  earth,  and  that  he  was  to 
be  sent  down  thence  by  God  to  fulfil  his  Messianic  calling  (cf .  Schiirer :  I.e. 
II.  p.  444  sq.;  Eng.  Trans.,  Div.  II.  Vol.  II.  S.  159  sq.).    Whether  Paul  shared 
that  belief  before  his  conversion,  we  do  not  know;  but  he  certainly  held  it 
afterwards  (cf.  Rom.  viii.  3;  1  Cor.  x.4;  2  Cor.  viii.  9;  Phil.  ii.  6  sq.). 

3  Rom.  iii.  9  sq.,  v.  12  sq. 

4  1  Cor.  xv.  47 ;  Rom.  viii.  9  sq. ;  2  Cor.  iii.  17,  18,  v.  19 ;  Gal.  iv.  6.    Cf . 
Col.  i.  19. 

6  Rom.  i.  4,  vi.  9  sq.,  vii.  4,  viii.  9  sq. ;  1  Cor.  xv.  15,  44,  49  sq. ;  Gal.  i.  1; 
Phil.  ii.  8sq.,  iii.  21. 


128  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

who  should  break  the  bondage  of  death  and  give  his 
people  life.  Struggling,  defeated,  despairing,  he  saw  in 
it  the  promise  of  his  own  deliverance,  for  which  he  had  so 
earnestly  longed,  but  which  had  seemed  utterly  unattain- 
able. Had  the  vision  not  meant  this  to  Paul,  it  would 
have  left  him  in  only  greater  despair  than  before.  To 
receive  a  revelation  of  the  Messiah  whom  he  and  his 
countrymen  had  been  expecting,  would  not  have  helped 
him,  for  into  the  Messianic  kingdom  only  the  righteous 
could  enter,  and  he  was  painfully  conscious  of  his  own 
unrighteousness.  Indeed,  to  have  revealed  to  him  as  the 
Christ  the  one  whom  he  had  himself  been  blaspheming 
and  attacking,  could  mean  only  a  sense  of  deeper  con- 
demnation. Such  a  revelation  must  mean  judgment  not 
mercy,  a  curse  and  riot  a  blessing.  That  it  meant  mercy 
and  blessing  to  Paul,  and  that  it  resulted  not  in  terror  and 
despair,  but  in  his  immediate  and  joyful  conversion  to 
Christian  discipleship,  was  due  to  the  fact  that  in  the  very 
vision  itself  was  given  him  an  entirely  new  conception  of 
the  office  of  the  Messiah.  Like  the  majority  of  his  country- 
men, he  had  doubtless  thought  of  him  as  coming  not  to 
save  his  people  from  their  sins,  but  to  bring  a  righteous 
people  their  reward.  But  in  the  Messiah  who  appeared 
to  him  on  the  way  to  Damascus,  Paul  beheld  his  saviour 
and  deliverer,  and  there  was  born  a  new  hope  in  his  heart, 
the  hope  of  eternal  life  which  he  had  completely  lost  under 
the  stress  of  the  spiritual  conflict  through  which  he  had 
been  passing.  No  wonder  that  his  cry  of  despair  was 
followed  by  the  exultant  exclamation,  "  I  thank  God, 
through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord " ; J  and  no  wonder  that 
he  could  write  to  the  Corinthians,  with  his  mind  upon  the 
great  event  that  had  taken  place  more  than  twenty  years 
before,  "  It  is  God  who  shined  in  our  hearts  to  give  the 
light  of  the  knowledge  of  the  glory  of  God  in  the  face  of 
Jesus  Christ."  2 

But  how  was  the  action  of  the  Messiah  to  effect  that 
deliverance  of  which  Paul  thus  felt  assured  ?  How  was 
Paul  himself,  and  how  were  others,  to  benefit  by  all  that 

i  Rom.  vii.  25.  2  2  Cor.  iv.  6. 


THE   CHRISTIANITY    OF    PAUL  129 

he  had  done  in  their  behalf?  It  was  in  answering  this 
question  that  Paul  departed  most  widely  from  the  thought 
of  all  his  predecessors  and  contemporaries;  that  he  showed 
himself  most  independent  of  outside  influence  and  revealed 
most  clearly  his  religious  individuality  and  originality. 
Christ  saves  a  man,  he  says,  by  entering  and  taking  up 
his  abode  within  him,  by  binding  him  indissolubly  to  him- 
self, so  that  it  is  no  longer  he  that  lives,  but  Christ  that 
lives  in  him,  so  that  whatever  Christ  does  he  does,  and 
whatever  he  does  Christ  does.1 

This  profound  and  remarkable  answer  was  entirely 
in  line  with  the  experience  through  which  Paul  had 
passed.  It  was  in  fact  the  only  answer  that  could  have 
satisfied  him  in  the  light  of  that  experience.  To  have 
believed  that  the  work  of  Christ  was  only  substitution- 
ary  in  its  significance  ;  that  he  died  merely  as  a  sacrifice 
by  virtue  of  which  other  men,  though  sinful,  might  be 
relieved  of  death,  the  penalty  of  their  sin  ;  to  have  believed 
that  there  was  only  an  arbitrary  and  forensic  connection 
between  the  work  of  Christ  and  the  salvation  of  men, 
would  have  been  to  do  violence  to  his  most  sacred  convic- 
tions, and  to  run  counter  to  all  his  religious  experience. 

1  Paul's  conception  of  the  significance  of  Christ's  death  and  of  the  union 
between  the  risen  Christ  and  the  believer,  though  the  fruit,  as  we  have  seen,  of 
his  own  religious  experience,  was  yet  not  without  confirmation  in  the  teach- 
ing of  Christ  himself,  and  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  that  teaching  con- 
tributed to  the  clearness  and  certainty  of  the  conception.  Christ  had  more 
than  once  referred  to  his  death  not  as  an  unavoidable  evil,  but  as  a  positive 
and  lasting  benefit  to  his  followers,  and  his  identification  of  the  bread  and 
wine,  of  which  his  disciples  partook  in  the  Last  Supper,  with  his  own  body 
and  blood,  might  possibly  seem  to  furnish  a  warrant  for  the  belief  in  the 
real  and  actual  oneness  between  the  believer  and  his  Lord.  With  Christ's 
utterances  concerning  his  death  and  with  the  occurrences  connected  with  the 
Last  Supper,  Paul  may  not  have  been  acquainted  at  the  time  of  his  conversion, 
but  he  must  have  learned  of  them  very  soon  thereafter,  and  they  may  well 
have  exercised  an  appreciable  influence  upon  the  formation  of  his  views ;  cf . 
1  Cor.  xv.  3,  x.  16  sq.,  xi.  23  sq.  It  is  true  that  he  interpreted  them  very  differ- 
ently from  Christ's  immediate  disciples ;  but  the  fact  that  he  found  in  them  a 
confirmation  of  the  fruits  of  his  religious  experience,  can  hardly  be  questioned. 

It  can  hardly  be  questioned,  moreover,  that  the  universal  belief  of  the  early 
Christians  in  the  presence  and  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  with  which  of 
course  Paul  must  have  been  familiar  even  before  his  conversion,  had  its  influ- 
ence in  the  formation  of  his  views.  He  could  not  fail  to  see  in  the  testimony 
of  others  to  the  presence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  a  confirmation  of  his  own  expe- 
rience of  Christ's  indwelling,  and  the  identification  of  Christ  and  the  Holy 
Spirit  must  thus  have  been  all  the  more  easy  and  natural  to  him. 

K 


130  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE 

Another  man  of  less  rigorous  character,  and  less  profoundly 
conscious  than  he,  of  the  inalienable  and  essential  connec- 
tion of  sin  with  death,  —  one  of  his  Jewish  contemporaries, 
for  example,  —  might  have  adopted  some  such  view ; 
might  have  believed  that  God  could  sever  that  essential 
connection,  and  in  virtue  of  a  merely  substitutionary 
sacrifice  of  Christ  could  pronounce  a  sinful  man  righteous 
and  grant  him  life,  but  Paul  could  not.  No  other  answer, 
indeed,  was  possible  to  him  than  the  answer  given  above, 
and  yet  its  boldness  is  startling.  It  is  not  in  any  sense  a 
scholastic  answer,  an  inference  from  observed  facts,  or  a 
logical  deduction  from  premises  supplied  by  Scripture  or 
tradition,  but  it  is  an  answer  based  upon  direct  personal 
knowledge,  upon  immediate  consciousness.  Paul  would 
never  have  dared  to  give  it,  nor  could  he  ever  have 
discovered  it,  except  under  the  influence  and  upon  the 
basis  of  a  profound  and  vivid  Christian  experience,  which 
was  the  most  real  thing  in  all  his  life  to  him.  We  can 
understand  neither  Paul  the  Christian  nor  Paul  the  theolo- 
gian, unless  we  appreciate  that  experience  and  give  it  its 
full  value.  It  marks  him  as  one  of  the  great  religious 
geniuses  of  history,  and  it  has  done  more  than  all  else  to 
make  his  name  immortal  and  his  influence  world-wide,  and 
that,  too,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  he  has  been  all  too  com- 
monly misinterpreted  and  degraded  into  a  mere  rabbinic 
legalist  or  scholastic  dialectician.  To  his  Christian  ex- 
perience he  gives  clear  and  vivid  expression  in  such  strik- 
ing utterances  as  the  following :  "  When  it  pleased  God  to 
reveal  his  Son  [not " to  me  "  but]  in  me  " ; l  "I  have  been 
crucified  with  Christ ;  yet  I  live  ;  and  yet  no  longer  I,  but 
Christ  liveth  in  me  "  ;  2  "  God  sent  forth  the  Spirit  of  his 
Son  into  our  hearts";3  and  in  other  passages  where  he 
simply  transfers  his  own  experience  to  others,  as,  for  ex- 
ample, in  the  words  :  "  For  as  many  of  you  as  were  bap- 
tized into  Christ  did  put  on  Christ "  ; 4  "  My  little  children 
of  whom  I  am  again  in  travail  until  Christ  be  formed  in 
you  " ; 6  "  If  Christ  is  in  you,  the  body  is  dead  because  of 

1  Gal.  i.  16.  »  Gal.  iv.  6.  6  Gal.  iv.  19. 

2  Gal.  ii.  20.  *  Gal.  iii.  27. 


THE   CHRISTIANITY    OF   PAUL  131 

sin ;  but  the  spirit  is  life  because  of  righteousness." l 
Paul's  epistles  are  full  of  utterances  like  these,  and  it  is 
plain  that  in  them  is  revealed  the  very  centre  and  heart 
of  his  Christian  experience.  Out  of  that  experience,  out 
of  the  revelation  of  the  Son  of  God  within  him,  was  born 
the  conviction  to  which  he  gave  such  constant  expression, 
that  Christ  had  redeemed  him  by  making  him  completely 
one  with  himself. 

But  this  union  between  himself  and  Christ,  of  which 
Paul  became  conscious  at  the  time  of  his  conversion,  had 
a  double  significance  to  him.  His  experience  had  con- 
vinced him,  as  we  have  seen,  that  he  could  never  attain 
life  unless  he  could  be  freed  from  the  flesh,  which  was 
constantly  dragging  him  downward  and  dooming  him  to 
death.  But  in  the  revelation  of  the  living  Christ  within 
him,  he  became  conscious  that  he  had  already  come  under 
the  control  of  a  life-giving  spirit,  and  had  already  passed 
from  death  unto  life.  He  must  have  died,  then,  with 
Christ  unto  the  flesh,  which  had  formerly  had  dominion 
over  him,  and  he  must  have  risen  again  with  him  unto 
the  new  life  in  the  Spirit  which  he  was  now  living.  His 
union  with  Christ,  therefore,  meant  to  Paul  both  death 
and  life ;  death  unto  the  flesh,  life  in  the  Spirit.2  Thus 
the  work  of  Jesus  had  been  made  of  benefit  to  Paul. 
Because  he  was  one  with  Christ,  Christ  had  effected  his 
salvation  by  his  death  and  resurrection. 

This  oneness  between  himself  and  the  Messiah,  which 
alone  made  his  salvation  possible  and  actual,  was  con- 
ceived by  Paul  in  a  very  real  way.  The  words  in  which 
he  describes  it  are  no  mere  figure  of  speech.  It  was 
not  simply  a  oneness  of  mind  or  heart  or  will,  not 
simply  that  he  possessed  the  disposition  or  character  of 
Christ,  but  that  he  was  actually  one  with  Christ  in 
nature.  He  conceived  the  oneness  between  the  spirit- 
ual man  and  Christ,  the  second  Adam,  to  be  as  true 
and  complete  as  between  the  fleshly  man  and  the  first 

1  Rom.  viii.  10 ;  cf .  also  2  Cor.  iv.  6  sq. 

2  Rom.  vi.  2  sq.,  vii.  4,  viii.  10;  2  Cor.  iv.  10,  v.  1  sq. ;  Gal.  ii.  20,  iii.  27; 
Phil.  iii.  10  sq.,  etc. 


132  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

Adam.1  Christ  and  the  spiritual  man  are  as  really  one 
as  Adam  and  the  natural  man.  The  oneness  between 
Adam  and  the  natural  man  lies  in  the  crdpj; ,  or  flesh  ;  the 
oneness  between  Christ  and  the  spiritual  man  lies  in  the 
TTvevfjia  or  spirit.  It  is  because  Adam  and  all  his  descend- 
ants partake  of  human  flesh,  that  they  are  really  one  in 
nature ;  and  it  is  because  Christ  and  the  believer  alike 
partake  of  the  Divine  Spirit  that  they  are  equally  one  in 
nature.2  Paul  does  not  think  of  the  spiritual  nature  of 
Christ  as  of  another  and  lower  order  than  the  spiritual 
nature  of  God  ;  he  does  not  make  Christ's  Spirit  of  one 
kind  and  God's  Spirit  of  another ;  in  fact,  as  already  re- 
marked, he  does  not  in  any  way  distinguish  the  Spirit  of 
God  from  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  but  speaks  of  the  same 
Spirit  at  one  time  as  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  again  even  in 
the  same  passage,  as  the  Spirit  of  Christ.3  Moreover,  in 
some  passages  Paul  identifies  Christ  himself  and  the  Spirit 
of  Christ  or  the  Spirit  of  God,4  using  indifferently  the 
personal  name  Christ  and  the  term  Trvevpa,  which  denotes 
Christ's  nature,  just  as  he  uses  interchangeably  the  words 
avBpcoTrds  and  crdpj;.  It  is  thus  abundantly  evident  that 
the  TTvevfjia,  or  spiritual  nature  of  Christ,  is  the  divine 
Trvev/JLa.  This  Divine  Spirit,  holy  by  nature,  and  possessed 
of  life  and  endowed  with  the  power  to  impart  life,5  is 
placed  by  Paul  in  constant  contrast  with  the  flesh,  which 
is  evil  and  therefore  doomed  to  death  and  death-dealing 
in  its  effects.  The  one  is  holy,  the  other  sinful ;  the  one 
incorruptible,  the  other  corruptible ;  the  one  immortal,  the 
other  mortal;  the  one  heavenly,  the  other  earthly.  At 
every  point  the  contrast  between  them  is  complete,  and 
is  frequently  emphasized  by  Paul.6  In  becoming  really 
united  to  Christ,  then,  a  man  becomes  a  partaker  with  him 
in  the  divine  nature,  or  Trvevpa.  When  Christ  takes  up 
his  abode  in  the  man,  it  is  the  Divine  Spirit  that  dwells 
in  him ;  he  has  within  him  a  new  nature  the  opposite  in 
every  respect  of  his  old  fleshly  nature.  If  he  is  truly 

1 1  Cor.  xv.  47-49;  cf.  Rom.  v.  15  sq.    4  Cf.  e.g.  Rom.  viii.  10;  2  Cor.  iii.  17. 

2  1  Cor.  vi.  17.  6  1  Cor.  xv.  45. 

»  Cf.  e.g.  Rom.  viii.  9  sq.  6  Cf.  Rom.  vii.,  viii. ;  1  Cor.  xv. ;  Gal.  v. 


THE   CHRISTIANITY   OF   PAUL  133 

united  to  Christ,  he  is  dead  unto  the  latter  and  alive  in 
the  former.  His  personality  has  not  been  destroyed  or 
displaced  by  the  personality  of  Christ.  But  his  person- 
ality has  received  a  new  content;  Spirit  in  place  of  flesh. 
The  old  discord  between  the  Ego  and  the  flesh  has  now 
given  place  to  the  new  harmony  between  the  Ego  and 
the  Spirit ;  he  is  no  longer  a  fleshly  but  a  spiritual  man. 
He  has  thus  passed  from  death  unto  life,  and  his  eternal 
existence  is  already  begun.1 

It  is  instructive  to  notice  in  this  connection  that  Paul 
found  no  difficulty  in  believing  that,  being  thus  released 
from  the  flesh,  he  would  himself  enjoy  eternal  life.  It  is 
plain  that  this  was  not  because  he  had  not  himself  sinned, 
for  the  seventh  chapter  of  Romans  makes  it  very  clear,  not 
simply  that  his  flesh  was  sinful,  but  that  he  had  himself 
been  overpowered  by  his  flesh,  and  had  broken  the  law  of 
God.  If  death,  then,  was  conceived  by  him  under  the 
aspect  of  a  penalty,  inflicted  upon  all  the  guilty,  it  would 
seem  that  he  ought  to  suffer  the  penalty,  unless  in  some 
way  he  were  to  make  expiation  for  his  guilt,  or  be  forgiven 
for  it.  But  of  such  expiation  there  is  no  trace  in  Paul, 
and,  as  already  remarked,  he  was  ethically  too  rigorous  to 
entertain  the  idea  of  the  removal  of  penalty  by  mere  for- 
giveness. That  he  could  believe,  therefore,  that  he  would 
enjoy  eternal  life,  though  he  had  been  a  sinner,  was  evi- 
dently due  to  the  fact  that  he  regarded  death  not  prima- 
rily as  a  penalty,  inflicted  by  way  of  punishment  upon  a 
guilty  person,  but  as  the  inevitable  consequence  of  corrup- 
tion ;  that  he  conceived  of  it,  in  other  words,  chiefly  under 
the  aspect  of  physical  death,  or  the  extinction  of  an  evil 
nature.2  Being  freed  from  that  nature,  and  becoming  par- 
taker of  a  spiritual,  holy,  and  divine  nature,  the  Christian 
escapes  the  death  of  his  old  o-dpj;  and  enters  upon  the  life 
of  his  new  irvevpa,  and  that  without  regard  to  his  past. 
It  is  not  so  much  forgiveness,  as  a  new  life ;  not  so  much 
pardon  for  the  old,  as  release  from  it  that  is  needed,  and 

1  Cf.  Rom.  v.  5;  1  Cor.  ii.  12,  iii.  16,  22,  vi.  11,  19,  xii.  13,  xiv.  25;  2  Cor.  i. 
22,  iv.  16,  v.  16,  17 ;  Gal.  iv.  0,  v.  16  sq.,  etc. 

2  Cf.  Gal.  vi.  8;  and  see  Kabisch:  Die  Eschatologie  des  Paulus,  S.  93  sq. 


134  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

that  is  secured,  according  to  Paul,  when  a  man  dies  with 
Christ  unto  the  flesh,  and  rises  with  him  in  the  Spirit. 

But  having  already  died  with  Christ  unto  the  flesh,  and 
risen  with  him  in  the  Spirit,  by  virtue  of  his  real  union 
with  Christ,  a  man  who  is  united  to  Christ  does  not  die 
again.  The  new  life  in  the  Spirit,  upon  which  he  has 
already  entered,  is  not  temporary  merely,  but  eternal.1 
The  death  of  the  body,  then,  which  is  universal,  and 
which  ultimately  ensues  in  the  case  of  the  believer  as 
well  as  of  the  unbeliever,  is  the  death  not  of  the  man 
himself,  but  simply  of  his  flesh.  He  has  already  been 
freed  from  the  control  of  the  flesh  and  has  become  a 
partaker  of  the  divine  nature,  and  so  he  lives  on  in 
spite  of  the  death  of  his  flesh.  That  death  is  not  a  mis- 
fortune or  a  curse  to  him,  as  it  would  be  if  he  were  still 
living  in  the  flesh,  when  he  would  be  dragged  to  destruc- 
tion with  it ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  a  blessing  to  him, 
for  by  it  he  is  released  from  contact  with  the  flesh,  and 
from  the  constant  temptation  to  yield  to  its  evil  solicita- 
tions, and  by  it  he  is  liberated  from  the  present  evil  world, 
to  which  he  is  bound  so  long  as  he  is  in  his  earthly  body, 
and  is  enabled  to  ascend  into  the  heavenly  sphere  where 
he  truly  belongs  because  he  partakes  of  the  Divine  Spirit. 
When  this  final  release  from  all  contact  with  the  flesh  has 
taken  place,  and  not  until  then,  is  a  man's  salvation  com- 
plete.2 And  so  Paul  longs  for  the  redemption  of  his  body, 
for  the  replacement  of  this  body  of  sinful  flesh  by  a  new 
spiritual  body  in  which  resides  no  evil.3 

The  resurrection  of  the  body,  of  which  Paul  speaks  at 
some  length  in  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  First  Corinthians, 
does  not  mean  the  resurrection  of  our  present  fleshly  body 
—  its  resurrection  would  be  not  a  blessing,  but  a  curse ;  it 
means,  on  the  contrary,  the  resurrection  of  a  spiritual  body 
which  is  not  simply  the  present  fleshly  body  purified,  but 
a  body  of  an  entirely  different  nature.  It  is  this  contrast 
between  the  present  fleshly  body  and  the  future  spiritual 
body  which  Paul  emphasizes  in  the  chapter  referred  to. 

1  Cf.  e.g.  Rom.  vi.  8-11,  23.  2  Of.  Rom.  xiii.  11. 

8  Rom.  viii.  23;  1  Cor.  xv.  54  sq. 


THE  CHRISTIANITY   OF   PAUL  135 

The  new  spiritual  body  is  distinguished  from  the  old  fleshly 
body  just  as  sharply  as  the  new  spiritual  life  is  distinguished 
from  the  old  fleshly  life.  The  resurrection  of  one's  body, 
therefore,  is  simply  the  natural  sequence  of  one's  resurrec- 
tion with  Christ  to  the  new  life  in  the  Spirit  here  on  earth. 
Those  who  have  already  risen  here  in  the  Spirit  shall  rise 
again  after  the  death  of  their  present  bodies  in  a  new  spir- 
itual body,  by  its  very  nature  holy  and  immortal,  and  thus 
fitted  for  the  new  spiritual  and  eternal  life. 

The  death  unto  the  flesh,  which  has  already  taken  place 
in  the  case  of  the  believer,  means  his  release  from  the 
control  of  the  flesh,  but  not  his  separation  from  it.  Con- 
tact with  the  flesh  still  continues.  He  still  has  flesh,  but 
the  flesh  no  longer  rules  him.  He  is  now  its  master,  not 
its  slave.  He  lives  no  longer  in  it,  but  in  the  Spirit,  and 
he  is  therefore  a  truly  spiritual  and  not  a  fleshly  man.1 
But  so  long  as  the  flesh  remains  alive,  it  maintains  a  con- 
stant struggle  against  the  Spirit,  striving  continually  to 
regain  the  mastery  of  the  man.2  For  that  reason  the 
Christian  is  in  constant  danger.  Though  he  has  died 
with  Christ  unto  the  flesh  and  risen  with  him  in  the  Spirit, 
and  has  thus  been  freed  from  the  control  of  sin  and  be- 
come a  servant  of  God,3  he  may  lose  his  hold  upon  Christ 4 
and  fall  back  into  his  old  bondage  ; 5  having  begun  in  the 
Spirit,  he  may  end  in  the  flesh ; 6  for  even  a  spiritual  man 
may  be  tempted,7  and  coming  again  under  the  dominion  of 
the  flesh,  may  be  lost.8  That  a  man  can  be  at  the  same 
time  under  the  control  of  both  the  flesh  and  the  Spirit, 
and  can  live  at  the  same  time  in  accordance  with  both, 
Paul  denies  unequivocally.9  But  he  that  is  not  under  the 
control  of  the  Spirit,  he  that  is  living  in  the  flesh  and  not 
in  the  Spirit,  is  none  of  Christ's.10  The  Christian's  flesh, 
which  still  clings  to  him,  is  sinful,  and  continues  to  serve 
the  "law  of  sin,"  as  it  did  before  his  conversion,11  but 
he  himself  is  no  longer  under  its  control,  he  is  a  "new 

1  Cf .  Rom.  viii.  4, 5, 12  sq. ;  1  Cor.  vi.  15  sq. ;  2  Cor.  iv.  7  sq. ;  Gal.  v.  16, 18, 24. 

2  Gal.  v.  17  sq.  6  Gal.  iii.  3.  9  Rom.  viii.  6-9;  cf.  1  Cor.  x,  21. 
8  Rom.  vi.  22.                1  Gal.  vi.  1.               1°  Rom.  viii.  9. 

4  Col.  ii.  19.  8  i  Cor.  ix.  27.          "  Rom.  vii.  25. 

s  Gal.  v.  1,  4,  13. 


136  THE   APOSTOLIC    AGE 

creature." l  Nor  can  he  come  under  its  control  and  follow 
its  behests  without  ceasing  to  be  a  spiritual  man  and  a 
disciple  of  Christ.  It  is  the  realization  of  this  danger  of 
subjection  to  the  flesh,  which  besets  a  man  even  after 
he  has  been  released  from  its  dominion,  that  draws  from 
Paul  the  earnest  warnings,  admonitions,  and  exhortations 
with  which  his  epistles  are  filled.  Those  exhortations 
are  addressed  to  Christians,  and  are  none  the  less  urgent 
because  he  is  continually  reminding  them  that  they  have 
already  died  unto  sin  and  been  released  from  its  control. 
On  the  contrary,  they  gain  added  force  and  point  from 
that  very  fact ;  for  having  been  thus  liberated,  there  is  the 
more  reason  for  Christians  to  guard  their  liberty  jealously, 
that  they  may  not  fall  again  into  the  old  and  deadly 
bondage.2 

In  his  effort  to  guard  the  Christian  disciples  whom 
he  addresses  in  his  epistles,  from  renewed  subjection  to 
the  dominion  of  sin,  Paul  urges  upon  them  a  twofold 
treatment  of  the  flesh ;  exhorting  them  on  the  one  hand 
to  break  its  power  by  bruising  it,  or  by  destroying  and 
putting  it  to  death  j3  on  the  other  hand,  to  take  from 
under  its  control  the  bodily  members  which  it  has  em- 
ployed as  instruments  of  sin  and  use  them  as  instruments 
of  righteousness.4  The  former  method,  which  is  ascetic 
in  its  tendency,  is  entirely  in  line  with  Paul's  view  of  the 
flesh,  and  we  might  therefore  naturally  expect  him  to 
make  much  of  it  and  to  find  in  asceticism  the  surest  way 
to  life.  But  the  truth  is  that  there  is  very  little  asceticism, 
in  the  ordinary  sense,  in  Paul's  epistles,5  while  there  is 
much  that  makes  in  the  opposite  direction.6  Paul  was 
perhaps  saved  from  the  natural  result  of  his  view  of  the 
flesh  by  his  belief  in  the  speedy  consummation.  "  The  time 
is  shortened,"  he  says,  and  "  the  fashion  of  this  world 

i  2  Cor.  v.  17. 

2Cf.  Rom.  vi.  12,  13,  viii.  12,  13,  xiii.  12-14;  1  Cor.  vi.  20;  Gal.  v.  1  sq., 
16-25;  Phil,  ii.12;  Col.  iii.  1-10. 

3  Rom.  viii.  13;  1  Cor.  v.  5,  ix.  27 ;  2  Cor.  iv.  10,  11 ;  Col.  iii.  5. 

4  Rom.  vi.  13,  19;  1  Cor.  vi.  15-20. 

5  Traces  of  it  are  to  be  found  in  1  Cor.  vii.  1,  8 ;  cf .  also  the  passages 
referred  to  in  note  3. 

6  Cf.  Rom.  xiv. ;  1  Cor.  vi.  12  sq.,  x.  23  sq. 


THE  CHRISTIANITY  OF   PAUL  13? 

passeth  away."1  The  danger  to  be  apprehended,  there- 
fore, from  the  continued  existence  and  presence  of  the 
flesh,  did  not  seem  as  serious  as  it  might  otherwise,  and 
a  feeling  of  indifference  and  contempt  for  the  flesh  itself 
and  for  the  earthly  relations  and  environment  which  ex- 
cited its  lust,  could  take  the  place,  at  least  at  times,  of  the 
bitter  hostility  which  it  naturally  aroused.  To  this  con- 
sideration is  to  be  added  the  fact  that  Paul's  dualism  was 
at  bottom  religious  and  not  cosmical,  and  that  he  could, 
therefore,  in  true  Hebrew  fashion,  look  upon  "  the  earth 
and  the  fulness  thereof  "  as  the  Lord's,2  could  regard  all 
things  as  belonging  to  him  who  is  Christ's,3  and  could 
esteem  everything  clean  in  itself,4  and  lawful  to  the 
spiritual  man.5 

But  more  than  all,  Paul  was  saved  from  asceticism 
by  his  conception  of  the  Christian  life  as  divine,  and  by 
his  confidence  in  the  power  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  whose 
indwelling  alone  makes  that  life  possible.  Though  at 
times,  observing  as  he  did  in  others,  and  feeling  in  him- 
self the  continued  strength  and  vitality  of  the  old  flesh, 
he  urged  the  trampling  of  the  body  under  foot,  as  a  rule, 
and  when  he  was  truest  to  himself,  he  was  so  vividly  con- 
scious of  the  power  of  the  Spirit  within  him,  that  he  felt 
himself  complete  master  of  his  flesh,  and  could  use  it  as 
his  servant,  employing  all  his  members  as  instruments  of 
righteousness.  In  fact,  to  admit  that  his  body  could  not 
be  so  used,  and  that  his  only  safety  lay  in  its  destruction, 
was  really  to  impugn  the  power  of  Christ,  as  Paul  himself 
evidently  felt  when  he  wrote  such  passages  as  Rom.  viii.  16, 
17,  38 ;  1  Cor.  x.  13 ;  Gal.  iv.  6,  7 ;  Phil.  i.  6.  But,  in  accord- 
ance with  his  conception  of  the  controlling  power  in  the 
Christian  life,  Paul's  exhortations  to  his  Christian  readers 
have  reference  commonly  not  to  the  Christian's  attitude 
toward  his  fleshly  nature,  but  to  his  relation  to  Christ  or  to 
the  Divine  Spirit  within  him.  He  is  continually  expressing 
the  hope  that  those  whom  he  addresses  may  keep  their 
minds  set  on  spiritual  things,  that  they  may  put  on  Christ, 

1 1  Cor.  vii.  29,  31.  2  i  Cor.  x.  26.  3  1  Cor.  iii.  23. 

4  Rom.  xiv.  14,  20.  5  i  Cor.  x.  23. 


138  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

that  Christ  may  dwell  in  them  richly,  that  they  may  be 
not  their  own,  but  Christ's,  that  they  may  live  in  the  Spirit 
and  walk  in  the  Spirit,  that  they  may  not  lose  their  hold 
on  Christ,  but  that  his  Spirit  may  fill  them  and  abound ; l 
and  he  is  confident  that  if  they  do  thus  keep  their  hold  on 
Christ,  and  if  he  does  thus  dwell  in  them,  as  he  must  if 
they  are  his,  the  flesh  will  have  no  power  over  them,  even 
though  they  are  not  yet  released  from  contact  with  it.  But 
even  such  exhortations  as  these  fail  to  express  the  essence 
of  the  Christian  life  as  Paul  experienced  it ;  and  even  such 
confidence  is  not  the  supreme  confidence  that  sustains  him 
and  that  gives  him  his  wonderful  religious  power.  It  is 
Christ's  hold  upon  the  Christian  that  he  trusts,  not  the 
Christian's  hold  upon  Christ.  The  Christian's  life  is  not 
his  own  life,  but  Christ's  life ;  and  it  is  not  in  exhortations 
to  Christians,  therefore,  whatever  those  exhortations  may 
be,  but  in  hymns  of  praise  to  God,  that  Paul's  Gospel  finds 
its  truest  expression.2 

Our  study  of  Paul's  conception  of  redemption  throws 
light  upon  his  view  of  law,  and  of  the  Christian's  relation 
to  it,  a  subject  about  which  he  has  so  much  to  say  in  his 
Epistles  to  the  Romans  and  Galatians.  By  law  Paul 
means  ordinarily  not  merely  the  divine  character,  or  the 
natural  constitution  of  the  universe,  or  the  ideal  of  human 
perfection,  but  positive  divine  enactment;  a  definite  ex- 
pression of  the  will  of  God  given  for  a  particular  purpose. 
Law  in  this  sense  was  laid  by  God  upon  Adam  and  all  his 
descendants,  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews.  But  law,  what- 
ever its  terms,  and  whatever  the  time  and  the  circum- 
stances of  its  enactment,  was  given  only  in  consequence 
of  sin.3  Had  there  been  no  sin,  there  would  have  been  no 
law ;  it  was  the  existence  of  sin  that  required  its  promul- 
gation. But  sin  attaches  to  human  nature  or  flesh.  Flesh, 
therefore,  is  subject  to  law,  and  every  man  who  is  in  the 
flesh,  whether  he  be  Jew  or  Gentile,  is  under  its  dominion. 
But  the  law,  whose  author  is  God,  is  holy  while  the  flesh 
is  unholy.  The  flesh,  therefore,  never  has  obeyed,  and 

1  Rom.  xiii.  14,  xv.  13;  1  Cor.  vi.  19,  vii.  22;  Gal.  v.  16,  25;  Eph.  v.  18. 

2  Rom.  viii.  38  sq.  a  Rom.  v.  20;  Gal.  iii.  19. 


THE   CHRISTIANITY   OF   PAUL  139 

never  can  obey,  the  law.1  The  law  consequently  serves 
only  to  reveal  man's  sin.2  Becoming  conscious  as  he  does 
when  he  sees  the  contrast  between  his  own  life  and  the 
law's  righteous  requirements  that  he  is  a  sinner,  he  knows 
that  not  life,  but  death,  the  necessary  consequence  of  sin, 
awaits  him.  He  does  not  die  because  he  breaks  the  law ; 
he  dies  because  he  is  sinful,  and  that  he  is  whether  there 
be  any  law  or  not.3  But  a  man  is  subject  to  law  only  so 
long  as  he  lives.  When  he  dies,  he  passes  out  from  under 
its  control,  for  the  law  has  dominion  over  the  living  only, 
not  over  the  dead.4  When  Christ  died,  therefore,  he  was 
discharged  from  the  law,  to  which  he  had  been  subject 
while  in  the  flesh,5  just  as  every  man  is  discharged  from 
it  when  he  dies,  not  because  the  law  has  exacted  its  full 
penalty,  —  the  law  exacts  no  penalty,  —  but  simply  be- 
cause it  can  sustain  no  relation  to  one  who  has  ceased 
to  exist.  But  Christ  did  not  remain  dead;  on  the  con- 
trary, he  ro&e  again.  But  in  the  new  life  upon  which  he 
entered  at  his  resurrection,  he  was  no  longer  subject  to 
the  law,  for  he  was  no  longer  in  the  flesh,  but  in  the  Spirit, 
and  over  the  Spirit,  that  is  over  the  Divine  Spirit,  which 
alone  is  in  Paul's  thought,  the  law  exercises  no  dominion. 
Christ's  new  life,  therefore,  in  the  Spirit,  was  a  life  of 
complete  freedom  from  law.  But  that  which  took  place 
in  the  case  of  Christ  takes  place  also  in  the  case  of  his 
disciples,  who  die  with  him  unto  the  flesh,  and  rise  with 
him  in  the  Spirit.  Dying,  they  are  discharged  from  the 
law,  and  rising  again,  they  rise  unto  a  new  life  over  which 
the  law  has  no  dominion,  a  life  lying  without  its  sphere. 
Thus  the  man  who  has  died  with  Christ  and  has  risen 
again  with  him,  is  not  under  the  condemnation  of  the  law, 
for  the  law  sustains  no  relation  to  him.  It  is  in  this  sense 
that  Paul's  characterization  of  the  believer  as  a  justified 
man  is  to  be  understood.  He  has  been  justified  not  by 
the  law,  but  from  the  law,  for  he  has  been  discharged  from 
its  control,  and  it  no  longer  has  jurisdiction  over  him.6 

iRom.  vii.  12  sq.,  viii.  7.  3  Rom.  v.  13,  vii.  13.          «  Gal.  iv.  4. 

2  Rom.  iii.  20.  *  Rom  vii.  1. 

6  Cf.  Rom.  vi.  7:  6  yap  airoQavuv  deSiKaiwrcu  dirb  rrjs 


140  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

Paul  is  very  emphatic  and  unequivocal  in  his  assertion 
that  the  Christian  disciple  is  a  free  man  ;  that  the  Christian 
life  upon  which  he  has  already  entered,  is  a  life  of  complete 
liberty.1  But  such  teaching  smacks  of  antinomianism. 
Indeed,  even  in  his  own  day,  it  brought  upon  Paul  the 
condemnation  of  many  who  believed  that  his  Gospel  meant 
the  subversion  of  all  good  morals,  and  must  inevitably 
open  the  floodgates  of  anarchy  and  crime.  It  is  instructive 
to  notice  the  way  in  which  Paul  answers  his  assailants. 
He  makes  no  compromise,  nor  does  he  in  the  least  alter 
the  terms  of  his  Gospel.  He  simply  asserts  that  if  we 
died  with  Christ  unto  the  flesh,  we  died  also  unto  sin,  and 
"how,  then,"  he  cries,  "shall  we  who  died  to  sin,  any  longer 
live  therein  ?  "  2  To  say  that  freedom  from  the  law  means 
license  to  sin  is  from  Paul's  standpoint  illogical  and  absurd, 
for  only  he  is  free  from  the  law  who  is  dead  unto  the  flesh, 
and  therefore  unto  sin.  If  he  comes  again  at  any  time 
under  the  control  of  the  flesh,  if  he  ceases  to  be  controlled 
by  the  Spirit,  and  is  led  by  the  flesh  into  sin,  he  comes 
thereby  immediately  under  the  control  of  law.  He  can- 
not be  controlled  by  the  flesh  without  being  controlled  by 
law.  Freedom  from  law,  therefore,  cannot  mean  license 
to  sin,  for  there  is  no  freedom  from  law  where  there  is  sin. 
If  a  Christian  man  were  to  abuse  his  freedom,  he  would 
in  the  very  act  cease  to  be  free,  and  would  be  subject 

1  Cf.  e.g.  Rom.  vi.  14,  vii.  6,  x.  4;  Gal.  ii.  19,  iii.  24  sq.,  v.  13,  18;  Col.  ii. 
14.    But  there  are  other  passages  which  seem  at  first  sight  inconsistent  with 
the  assertion  that  the  Christian  is  subject  to  no  law.    Such,  for  instance,  are 
Rom.  viii.  4,  xiii.  8-10,  and  Gal.  v.  14,  where  the  fulfilling  of  the  law  is  referred 
to.    But  it  is  evident,  when  these  passages  are  read  in  the  light  of  the  others 
just  mentioned,  that  Paul  was  thinking  when  he  wrote  them  not  of  a  law  laid 
upon  the  Christian  from  without,  but  of  the  inner  law  of  the  divine  character. 
The  law  which  was  given  by  God,  and  is  therefore  spiritual  (Rom.  vii.  14),  is 
an  expression  of  the  character  of  God,  and  for  that  very  reason  it  is  impossible 
for  the  flesh  to  keep  it.    But  if  it  expresses  the  divine  character,  it  must  ex- 
press also  the  life  of  the  spiritual  man,  for  that  life  is  divine;  and  thus  the 
spiritual  man,  though  not  under  the  bondage  of  a  law  any  more  than  God 
is  under  the  bondage  of  a  law,  may  properly  be  said  to  fulfil  the  law,  just 
as  God  fulfils  the  law  of  his  own  character  which  finds  expression   in   the 
revealed  law.    The  Christian  is  not  under  law,  but  the  Christian  life  is  a 
holy  life,  and  thus  there  are  revealed  in  it  the  same  features  that  are  ex- 
pressed in  the  holy  law  of  God.    And  so  the  law  fiuds  itself  fulfilled  in  the 
Christian. 

2  Rom.  vi.  2. 


THE   CHRISTIANITY   OF   PAUL  141 

again  to  law  just  as  all  unredeemed  men  are  subject  to  it, 
but  he  would  not  then  be  Christ's. 

It  will  be  seen  that  Paul  does  not  teach  the  abrogation 
or  destruction  of  law ;  law  still  exists  as  truly  as  it  ever 
did,  and  will  exist  so  long  as  there  is  any  sin,  and  will 
continue  to  be  binding  upon  sinners  so  long  as  there 
are  any  sinners.  It  is  only  the  release  from  law  of 
those  that  have  died  with  Christ  unto  the  flesh  and 
risen  with  him  in  the  Spirit  that  Paul  teaches :  the 
release,  that  is,  of  those  that  have  faith  in  Christ.  And 
such  teaching  is  relieved  from  all  possible  flavor  of 
antinomianism  by  Paul's  view  of  the  Christian  life  as 
a  divine  life,  and  by  his  profound  conception  of  faith 
as  the  human  condition  of  the  inception  and  continu- 
ance of  that  life.  Faith,  according  to  Paul,  is  the  act 
whereby  a  man  identifies  himself  with  Christ,  becomes 
actually  one  with  him  in  nature,  and  is  thus  enabled  to 
die  and  rise  again  with  him.  Faith  is  thus  the  indispen- 
sable, and  at  the  same  time  the  all-sufficient,  condition  of 
salvation.  Viewed  in  this  way,  it  is  an  act  of  the  pro- 
foundest  spiritual  meaning.  It  is  not  mere  assent,  intel- 
lectual or  moral,  it  is  not  mere  confidence  in  Christ's  words 
or  in  his  promises,  it  is  not  a  mere  belief  that  he  is  what  he 
claims  to  be,  but  it  is  the  reception  of  Christ  himself  into 
the  soul.  By  it  a  man  becomes  completely  one  with 
Christ,  for  Christ  enters  into  and  abides  with  every  be- 
lieving, that  is,  every  receptive,  man.  Faith  is  thus  not 
an  act  of  a  part  only  of  man's  nature,  but  of  his  whole 
nature,  or  rather,  strictly  speaking,  it  is  not  an  act  at  all, 
but  simply  the  attitude  of  receptivity  toward  Christ. 
Paul's  view  of  the  character  and  quality  of  faith  appears 
perhaps  as  clearly  as  anywhere  in  the  words:  "By  their 
unbelief  they  were  broken  off,  and  thou  standest  by  thy 
faith.  Be  not  high-minded,  but  fear ;  for  if  God  spared 
not  the  natural  branches,  neither  will  he  spare  thee." 1 
Faith  is  here  made  the  opposite  of  high-mindedness,  or 
pride,  or  self-confidence.  It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  the 
essence  of  faith,  according  to  Paul,  is  the  renunciation  of 

iRom.  xi.  20,  21. 


142  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

confidence  in.  self,  and  the  absolute  dependence  upon  and 
trust  inftfedJMr;  a  spirit  of  humility  and  self-renunciation 
which^itonents  one  for  the  indwelling  of  Christ.  So  long 
as  this  "attitude  of  receptivity,  this  self-emptiness  and  open- 
ness to  the  Divine  Spirit,  is  maintained,  Christ  dwells  in 
the  man,  living  in  him  and  through  him  the  Christian  life, 
the  free,  spiritual  life  over  which  no  law  has  dominion. 
But  if  the  faith  be  lost,  if  a  man  fall  into  unbelief,  or 
become  high-minded  and  fail  to  maintain  the  true  atti- 
tude of  receptivity,  Christ  will  depart,  and  he  will  come 
again  under  the  control  of  the  flesh  and  under  the  domin- 
ion of  the  law.1  Faith,  or  the  attitude  of  receptivity 
toward  the  Spirit  of  God,  thus  conditions  not  merely 
the  beginning,  but  the  continuance  of  the  Christian  life. 
Only  to  a  receptive  man  will  the  Divine  Spirit  be  given, 
and  only  in  such  a  man  will  it  abide.2 

What  has  been  said  of  Paul's  conception  of  the  Christian 
life  and  the  nature  of  faith,  makes  his  meaning  quite  clear 
when  he  speaks,  as  he  often  does,  of  the  righteousness  of 
faith  and  contrasts  it  with  the  righteousness  of  works. 
The  righteousness  of  faith  is  the  divine  righteousness 
which  a  man  receives  when  he  receives  Christ.  It  is  not 
a  mere  declaration  by  God  that  the  sinner  is  justified  or 

1  This  possibility  Paul  distinctly  contemplates  in  Rom.  xi.  20  sq. 

2  The  harmonization  of  this  idea  with  the  conception  of  the  absoluteness  of 
God's  election,  which  is  asserted  so  unequivocally  in  Romans  ix.,  Paul  nowhere 
attempts.    But  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  his  sweeping  statement  of  God's  un^ 
conditional  sovereignty  in  the  matter  of  election  is  made  in  reply  to  the  Jews, 
who  supposed  that  their  efforts  after  legal  righteousness  gave  them  a  claim 
on  God,  and  that  God  was  bound  to  give  them  life  as  a  reward.    In  opposition 
to  such  a  claim  Paul  asserts  that  God  is  bound  by  nothing  in  man ;  but  that 
he  is  absolutely  free  and  sovereign,  and  may  elect  whom  he  pleases  without 
any  regard  to  the  character  or  accomplishments  of  the  person  or  class  thus 
elected.    The  claim  which  they  make  is  not  that  they  have  faith,  —  Paul  would 
not  have  answered  such  a  claim  thus,  —  but  that  they  have  merit.    On  the 
other  hand,  over  against  those  who  excuse  themselves  on  the  ground  that  they 
are  not  to  blame,  if  God  thus  elects  and  condemns  according  to  his  own  good 
pleasure,  Paul  is  no  less  decisive  in  his  assertion  of  human  responsibility  and 
in  his  insistence  that  the  Jews'  rejection  is  due  to  their  own  want  of  faith 
(Rom.  ix.  32).    Paul  leaves  these  two  divergent  lines  of  thought  unreconciled, 
as  they  are  left  in  the  Old  Testament ;  but  the  fact  that  with  a  particular 
polemic  interest  he  asserts  so  strongly  God's  absolute  and   unconditioned 
sovereignty  should  not  lead  us  to  suppose  that  he  intends  to  imply  that 
the  exercise  of  faith  upon  which  he  expressly  conditions  salvation  is  not  in 
man's  own  power.    Cf .  Bruce,  I.e.  p.  310  sq. 


THE  CHRISTIANITY   OF   PAUL  143 

forgiven  for  his  past  sins  and  accounted  righteous  without 
regard  to  his  actual  character ;  it  is  not  a  mere  status  into 
which  he  is  introduced  by  such  declaration,  but  it  is  at 
bottom  the  real  righteousness  or  the  righteous  nature 
which  is  bestowed  upon  the  believer  by  God.  But  this 
righteousness  is  placed  by  Paul  in  sharpest  contrast  with 
the  righteousness  of  man,  for  the  latter  in  God's  sight  is 
no  righteousness.  Man,  being  flesh,  cannot  be  righteous. 
He  may  think  himself  righteous,  he  may  observe  the  law, 
as  he  fancies,  perfectly,  but  the  law  is  spiritual,  and  he  is 
carnal,  and  his  observance  of  it  consequently  is  but  a  delu- 
sion.1 For  a  man  to  be  justified  by  his  own  works,  or  make 
himself  righteous,  is  an  absolute  impossibility.  Only  by 
escaping  from  the  flesh  and  becoming,  by  the  reception  of 
the  Divine  Spirit,  a  spiritual  man,  does  he  become  right- 
eous ;  and  only  as  a  righteous  man  does  he  escape  death 
and  enjoy  eternal  life.  He  is  saved  therefore  by  grace,  and 
not  by  works.  God  saves  him ;  he  cannot  save  himself. 
But  God  saves  him,  not  merely  by  accounting  him  right- 
eous and  declaring  him  released  from  the  penalty  of  death, 
but  by  giving  him  the  Divine  Spirit,  and  thus  replacing  his 
old  fleshly  nature  with  a  new  spiritual  nature.  Thus  the 
righteousness  of  God,  or  the  righteousness  of  faith,  of  which 
Paul  has  so  much  to  say,  is  not  primarily,  as  he  uses  it,  a 
forensic  or  legal  term,  but  stands  for  a  real  thing,  the  act- 
ual divine  righteousness  or  righteous  nature  which  man 
receives  from  God  when  he  receives  God's  Spirit.2  It  is 
righteousness  not  imputed,  but  imparted  to  man ;  and  im- 
parted just  because  the  divine  nature  or  Spirit,  which  is 
itself  righteous,  is  imparted  to  him.3 

In  thus  emphasizing  the  real  as  distinguished  from  the 
forensic  element  in  Paul's  thinking,  I  do  not  mean  to  deny 
that  he  frequently  makes  use  of  forensic  terms,  and  clothes 
his  thoughts  in  legal  forms.  The  distinct  and  explicit 
phrases  "  reckoning  righteousness  "  unto  a  man,  and  "  reck- 

i  Rom.  vii.  14;  Gal.  ii.  16,  iii.  11,  21. 

2Cf.  Rom.  i.  17,  iii.  21  sq.,  iv.  11,  13,  v.  17,  ix.  30,  x.  3,  6;  2  Cor.  v.  21; 
Phil.  iii.  9 ;  Eph.  iv.  24. 

3  See  the  references  given  in  the  previous  note ;  also  Rom.  v.  5  sq.,  vi.  4  sq., 
viii.  5,  9,  11,  14  sq. 


144  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

oning  faith  for  righteousness,"  occur  in  his  epistles,1  and 
the  word  SLKCIIOVV,  which  he  uses  so  frequently,  has  the 
forensic  meaning  of  accounting  or  treating  as  righteous, 
at  least  a  part  of  the  time.2  And  yet,  in  spite  of  this  fact, 
to  regard  such  expressions  as  formative  in  Paul's  thinking, 
and  to  read  his  conception  of  salvation  in  their  light,  is  to 
misinterpret  him.  The  truth  is  that  his  tendency  was  pre- 
dominantly ethical,  and  the  forensic  terms  were  secondary, 

1  Notably  in  Rom.  iv.  and  Gal.  iii.  6.    The  word  used  is  \oylfrij.cu ;  as  in  Rom. 
iv.  5,  \oylfrTcu  ^  Tr/crns  atfroO  ets  diKaio<rvvr)i>.    Cf.  also  2  Cor.  v.  19;  Rom.  ii. 
26,  and  ix.  8. 

2  It  is  the  common  opinion  that  the  word  diKaiovv  is  used  by  Paul  solely  in 
the  forensic  sense,  but  the  opinion  is  not  justified  by  the  facts.    Leaving  out 
of  view  the  ordinary  meaning  of  the  word  in  the  classics  and  the  LXX.,  which 
ought  not  to  be  allowed  to  control  our  interpretation  of  it,  as  used  by  Paul,  to 
the  exclusion  of  all  other  considerations,  we  find  the  forensic  element  dis- 
tinctly and  unequivocally  involved  only  in  Rom.  ii.  13,  and  iii.  4  (in  the  latter 
case  in  a  quotation  from  the  Old  Testament),  and  in  both  instances  real  right- 
eousness is  assumed  as  the  basis,  God  himself  being  the  one  "  justified  "  in  the 
second  passage.    In  Rom.  iii.  20,  viii.  34;  1  Cor.  iv.  4;  Gal.  iii.  8,  11,  the  word 
might  be  understood,  so  fat  as  the  context  throws  light  upon  the  subject,  in 
either  a  forensic  or  real  sense,  but  in  all  other  cases  (Rom.  iii.  24,  26,  28,  30, 
iv.  2,  5,  v.  1,  9,  vi.  7,  viii.  30;  1  Cor.  vi.  11;  Gal.  ii.  16  sq.,  iii.  11,  24,  v.  4)  to 
exclude  the  conception  of  real  righteousness,  and  to  interpret  the  word  in  an 
exclusively  forensic  sense  is,  in  my  opinion,  to  miss  the  force  of  the  passage. 
This  can  be  clearly  shown  at  least  in  Rom.  iv.  2-5  and  1  Cor.  vi.  11.    Thus  in 
Rom.  iv.  2  sq.,  if  diKaiovv  be  taken  in  the  forensic  sense,  we  have  the  unmean- 
ing statement  that  if  God  accounted  Abraham  righteous  on  the  ground  of  his 
works,  Abraham  had  no  right  to  boast  before  God,  for  God  accounted  him 
righteous  on  the  ground  of  his  faith.    On  the  other  hand,  if  we  understand 
t8iKa.uS)0rj  to  mean  was  made  or  became  actually  righteous,  the  connection  of 
the  two  parts  of  the  passage  is  very  clear.    If  Abraham  was  righteous  as  a 
result  of  his  works,  he  had  reason  for  boasting,  but  even  then  he  could  not 
boast  before  God,  for  according  to  the  Scriptures  it  was  his  faith,  not  his  works, 
that  God  reckoned  as  righteousness  (tXoytcrdiri  curry  els  8iKaio<rvvi)v),  and  there- 
fore even  though  he  possessed  actual  legal  righteousness,  such  righteousness 
counted  for  nothing  in  God's  sight,  for  the  righteousness  that  has  value  in  his 
eyes  is  only  that  which  he  himself  imparts  to  him  who  has  faith.    So  also  in 
1  Cor.  vi.  11,  the  fact  that  tSiKaiudrjTe  follows  a7reXotf<ra<T0e  and  yyido-dyTf, 
and  that  it  is  connected  with  tv  r$  irt>eu/j.aTi  makes  it  very  clear  that  it  is  to 
be  taken  in  the  real  and  not  in  the  forensic  sense. 

For  a  defence  of  the  interpretation  of  SIKCUQVV  in  a  real  sense  see  Vincent's 
Word  Studies,  Vol.  III.  p.  37  sq. ;  and  compare  his  discussion  of  the  meaning 
of  dtKaioffvvrj  on  pp.  9  sq.  and  215.  See  also  Sabatier's  L'apotre  Paul, 
p.  273  sq.  (Eng.  Trans.,  p.  297  sq.),  and  Abbott's  Commentary  on  Romans, 
p.  54  sq. 

Since  this  note  was  written  there  has  appeared  in  the  American  Jour/ml 
of  Theology  (January,  1897,  p.  149  sq.)  an  article  by  Professor  Gould  on  St. 
Paul's  Use  of  BIKCUOVV,  to  which  I  am  happy  to  be  able  to  refer  in  support  of 
the  contention  that  SIKO.IOVV  is  used  by  Paul  in  a  real  as  well  as  in  a  forensic 
sense. 


THE   CHRISTIANITY   OF   PAUL  145 

not  primary,  with  him.  This  appears  very  clearly  in  the 
matter  of  forgiveness.  The  Epistles  to  the  Ephesians  and 
Colossians  bear  witness  to  his  belief  that  God  forgives  sins, 
but  the  divine  forgiveness  is  not  once  explicitly  referred  to 
in  his  other  epistles,  except  in  a  quotation  from  the  Old 
Testament  in  Rom.  iv.  7.1  Laying  such  emphasis  as  he 
does  upon  the  idea  of  God's  grace,  and  contrasting  it  so 
constantly  and  so  strongly  as  he  does  with  man's  merit, 
it  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  the  conception  which  is  so 
common  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  should  find  such  infre- 
quent utterance  in  his  writings.  It  simply  shows  that  his 
thought  ran  chiefly  along  other  lines,  and  though  his  gra- 
cious acceptance  with  God  of  course  meant  much  to  him, 
it  was  less  with  forgiveness,  in  the  ordinary  sense,  that  he 
was  concerned,  than  with  the  possession  of  the  Divine 
Spirit  which  transformed  him  from  a  sinner  to  a  saint. 
It  is  in  the  light,  not  simply  of  his  general  conception  of 
the  Gospel  already  outlined,  but  also  of  the  fact  just  re- 
ferred to,  that  his  use  of  such  terms  as  Sucaiovv,  Sifcaiocrvvrj, 
and  SiKaLwa-is  should  be  interpreted.  When  interpreted 
thus,  the  forensic  element,  which  so  many  have  emphasized 
to  the  exclusion  of  every  other,  is  seen  to  be  subordinate, 
not  supreme.2 


1  The  verb  aQiijui,  which  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  is  the  common  word 
meaning  "  to  forgive,"  is  found  in  Paul's  epistles  in  the  sense  of  forgive  or 
remit  only  in  Rom.  iv.  7,  in  a  quotation  from  the  Old  Testament.    The  noun 
d0e<m,  which  also  occurs  frequently  in  other  parts  of  the  New  Testament,  is 
found  in  his  epistles  only  in  Eph.  i.  7,  and  Col.  i.  14  ;  while  the  verb  xaplfr/jicu 
is  used  by  him  with  reference  to  the  divine  forgiveness  only  in  Eph.  iv.  32, 
and  Col.  ii.  13,  iii.  13. 

2  What  has  been  said  of  Paul's  conception  of  forgiveness  and  of  his  use  of 
forensic  terms  is  true  also  of  his  utterances  regarding  Christ's  redemptive 
work.    That  work,  though  he  commonly  represents  it  as  a  dying  unto  the 
flesh  and  a  rising  again  in  the  Spirit  in  order  to  redeem  men  from  the  power 
of  the  flesh  and  give  them  the  new  life  in  the  Spirit,  he  also  represents 
as  the  offering  of  a  sacrifice,  and  the  result  which  is  accomplished  by  it, 
as  the  reconciliation  of  man  and  God.     Thus  in  Eph.  v.  2,  he  calls  Christ 
a  sacrifice  (6v<rla),  and  in  1  Cor.  v.  7  he  says  that  "  Our  passover,  Christ,  hath 
been  sacrificed  "  (ervd-rf).    The  noun  "  reconciliation  "  (KaraXXayT?)  occurs  in 
Rom.  xi.  15  and  in  2  Cor.  v.  18,  19,  and  in  the  latter  passage  it  is  connected 
directly  with  the  work  of  Christ,  though  not  explicitly  with  his  death.     The 
verb  "to  reconcile"  (KaraXXdo-o-w  or  d7roKaTaXXdcr<raj)  is  found  in  Rom.  v.  10, 
2  Cor.  v.  18,  19;  Eph.  ii.  1<>,  and  Col.  i.  20.  21,  and  in  each  case  is  connected 
directly  with  Christ's  death  except  in  2  Cor.  v.  18,  19.    But  all  such  refer- 
ences are  to  be  understood  in  the  light  of  that  general  conception  of  salvation 

L 


146  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

Before  bringing  this  discussion  of  Paul's  Gospel  to  a 
close,  attention  should  be  called  to  the  patent  fact  that 
the  belief  in  the  release  of  the  Christian  from  bondage  to 
law  in  general  involved,  of  course,  his  release  from  bondage 
to  the  Jewish  law  in  particular.  But  for  such  release  an 
additional  warrant  was  given  in  the  appearance  of  the  risen 
Christ.  Doubtless  the  chief  ground  of  Paul's  hostility  to 
Jesus  had  been,  not  that  he  turned  the  thoughts  of  the 
people  upon  himself,  and  thus  hindered  their  preparation 
for  the  coming  of  the  true  Messiah,  though  that  was  bad 
enough,  but  that  he  inculcated  principles  which  seemed 
calculated  to  lead  them  away  from  the  law  and  to  dis- 
courage its  observance.  Such  conduct  was  alone  enough 
to  prove  him  an  impostor  in  Paul's  eyes.  That  he  should 
have  been  executed  by  a  mode  of  death  pronounced  ac- 
cursed in  the  law  was  a  fitting  sign  of  the  divine  judgment 
upon  him.  But  the  revelation  of  Jesus'  Messiahship  could 
mean  nothing  less  than  that  his  teaching  was  true ;  and  a 
revision  of  Paul's  conception  of  the  law  was  consequently 
inevitable.1  Thus  even  had  his  religious  experience  not 
been  what  it  was,  and  even  had  it  not  led  him  to  believe 
in  the  Christian's  freedom  from  all  law,  understanding 
Christ  as  he  did  Paul  could  hardly  have  done  otherwise 
after  his  conversion  than  assume  a  freer  attitude  toward 
the  Jewish  law  than  the  original  disciples. 

But  the  release  of  the  Christian  from  the  obligation  to 
observe  the  Jewish  law,  whether  based  solely  upon  his  liberty 
from  all  law  or  in  part  also  upon  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  meant 
logically  the  abolition  of  the  wall  of  partition  that  separated 
the  Gentile  from  the  Jew.  If  Paul,  therefore,  was  to  be  true 
to  his  principles,  he  could  recognize  no  essential  religious 
difference  between  circumcision  and  uncircumcision.  Both 
Jewish  and  Gentile  Christians  must  stand  religiously  upon 

and  of  the  work  of  Christ  which  has  been  briefly  outlined,  and  though  they 
ought  to  be  given  their  due  place,  they  should  not  be  allowed  to  control  our 
interpretation  of  all  Paul's  thought. 

1  That  the  Messiah  had  died  by  a  mode  of  death  pronounced  accursed  in  the 
law  must  also  have  affected  to  some  extent  Paul's  estimate  of  the  law  and 
must  have  tended  to  weaken  its  hold  upon  him.  Cf.  Gal.  iii.  13  and  see 
Everett's  Gospel  of  Paul,  p.  144  sq. 


THE   CHRISTIANITY    OF    PAUL  147 

the  same  plane.  This  fact  Paul  saw  clearly  at  an  early 
day,  and  he  did  not  shrink  from  the  consequences  in- 
volved in  it.  On  the  contrary,  he  asserted  distinctly  and 
unequivocally  the  equal  rights  of  Gentiles  in  the  Gospel. 
That  assertion  constituted  the  Magna  Charta  of  Gentile 
Christianity,  and  Paul  stood  by  it  unflinchingly  in  spite  of 
the  bitterest  criticism  and  the  most  relentless  opposition. 
That  he  did  his  life  work  among  the  Gentiles,  was  due, 
it  is  true,  not  solely  to  his  adoption  of  this  principle,  —  for 
he  might  have  believed  as  he  did  and  still  have  labored 
chiefly  among  his  own  countiymen,  as  he  seems  to  have 
done  for  some  time,  —  but  the  principle  was  ultimately  re- 
sponsible for  his  career  as  the  great  apostle  to  the  heathen, 
and  alone  made  that  career  possible. 

We  have  been  concerned  in  this  chapter,  not  with  Paul's 
missionary  labors,  nor  with  the  circumstances  which  led 
him  to  take  the  course  he  did  as  an  apostle,  but  only  with 
the  principles  that  underlay  his  work.  Those  principles 
he  reached  in  the  early  days  of  his  Christian  life,  as  a 
direct  result  of  the  revelation  of  the  Son  of  God  within 
him,  and  they  must  have  been  already  understood  and 
clearly  formulated  before  he  began  his  work  as  a  Christian 
evangelist.  Upon  them  his  labors  were  based  from  the 
very  commencement  of  his  career.  It  has  been  maintained 
by  many,  it  is  true,  that  his  Gospel  was  worked  out  slowly 
and  gradually,  and  that  it  took  shape  only  under  the  stress 
of  conflict  and  after  years  of  active  service ;  and  an  effort 
has  been  made  by  some  scholars  to  trace  a  development 
in  his  conception  of  Christianity,  even  during  the  period 
within  which  his  extant  epistles  were  written;  attention 
being  called  to  the  fact  that  the  Christianity  of  the  First 
Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians  is  of  a  much  simpler  character 
than  the  Christianity,  for  instance,  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans.1  But  even  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians 
was  written  nearly  twenty  years  after  Paul's  conversion, 
and  only  a  brief  interval  separated  it  from  his  greatest 
writings.  Moreover,  it  was  written  some  years  after  the 

1  Cf .  e.g.  Sabatier,  Matheson,  and  Clemen  (Chronologic  der  Paulinischen 
grief e,  1893;  S.  255  sq.).  On  the  other  side  see  Bruce,  I.e.  p.  6  sq. 


148  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

events  at  Jerusalem  and  at  Antioch,  of  which  he  tells 
us  in  Gal.  ii.,  and  consequently  the  fact  that  in  it  the  fun- 
damental principles  which  are  emphasized  to  such  an  ex- 
tent in  Romans,  Corinthians,  and  Galatians,  have  almost 
no  place,  cannot  be  urged  as  an  indication  of  their  later 
development,  for  his  conduct  both  at  Jerusalem  and  at 
Antioch  presupposes  those  principles.  It  is  therefore 
vain  to  attempt  to  discover  any  essential  development  in 
Paul's  general  conception  of  Christianity  after  the  time  of 
the  writing  of  the  earliest  of  his  extant  epistles.1  That 
development  lay  back  of  the  great  controversy,  back 
indeed  of  the  beginning  of  his  missionary  work  among 
the  Gentiles.  It  was  not  due  to  the  experience  gained  in 
that  work,  for  the  work  presupposes  the  development. 
Indeed,  there  is  little  in  it  that  may  not  have  belonged  to 
the  earliest  days  of  his  Christian  life,  to  a  time  before  he 
preached  the  Gospel  to  either  Jew  or  Gentile.  His  pre- 
Christian  experience  and  the  circumstances  of  his  conver- 
sion were  such  as  inevitably  to  lead  to  that  very  Gospel 
which  we  find  presented  years  later  in  his  great  epistles. 
It  is  impossible  to  imagine  what  the  Gospel  of  his 
earlier  Christian  years  could  have  been,  if  it  was  not 
that  Gospel.  It  is  impossible  to  conceive  of  his  stop- 
ping short  of  the  controlling  conception  which  we  find 
him  holding  until  the  end.  It  was  doubtless  in  the  period 
immediately  succeeding  his  conversion,  during  the  time 
that  preceded  his  entrance  upon  his  career  as  an  apostle, 
that  he  worked  out  the  great  problems  wrapped  up  in  his 
conversion,  and  reached  convictions  which  he  held  sub- 
stantially unaltered  throughout  the  remainder  of  his  life.2 
Those  convictions  were  the  fruit  not  of  instruction 
received  from  Christ's  apostles,  nor  of  a  knowledge  of  the 

1  This  is  still  more  evident  if  Galatians  is  the  earliest  of  Paul's  epistles,  as 
I  believe  it  to  be.    See  below,  p.  229. 

2  It  is  not  meant,  of  course,  that  no  development  took  place  in  connection 
with  any  of  Paul's  conceptions  during  the  period  represented  by  his  epistles. 
In  some  matters,  as,  for  instance,  God's  ultimate  purpose  for  the  Jews,  which 
he  discusses  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  Paul's  views  may  have  developed  con- 
siderably after  the  writing  of  his  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.    And  so  the  Christ- 
ology  which  appears  in  the  epistles  of  the  imprisonment  is  marked  by  some 
features  that  very  likely  formed  no  part  of  his  thought  when  he  wrote  hia 


THE   CHRISTIANITY    OF   PAUL  149 

teaching  of  Jesus  gained  by  Paul  before  or  after  he  became 
a  Christian,  but  of  the  revelation  of  the  Son  of  God  within 
him,  and  of  his  own  spiritual  experience  resulting  there- 
from. His  conceptions,  consequently,  bore  a  very  different 
form  from  the  conceptions  to  which  Jesus  himself  gave 
utterance,  and  yet  they  were  in  the  main  in  harmony  with 
the  Master's  spirit  and  tendency.  Paul's  pre-Christian 
experience  had  been  just  such  as  to  prepare  him  for  that 
complete  renunciation  of  personal  merit  and  personal 
pride,  and  that  complete  dependence  upon  God,  which 
were  fundamental  with  Christ.  And  so  in  his  emphasis 
upon  the  Christian  life  as  the  divine  life  in  man,  and  upon 
the  Christian's  release  from  bondage  to  an  external  law 
because  of  the  divine  life  within  him  which  is  its  own  law, 
Paul  was  in  essential  sympathy  though  not  in  formal 
agreement  with  the  Master.  In  his  occasional  references 
to  the  divine  bestowal  of  knowledge  and  power,1  and  in 
his  promise  to  be  with  his  disciples  in  spirit,2  Christ  cer* 
tainly  gave  some  warrant  to  the  developed  view  to  which 
Paul's  experience  led  him,  and  in  his  assertion  of  God's 
fatherhood,  and  in  his  emphasis  upon  love  as  the  substance 
of  the  law,  he  really  justified  Paul  in  his  denial  of  all 
legalism.3 

Thus,  though  with  his  more  abstract  conception  of  God 
and  man,  and  with  his  sharp  contrast  between  flesh  and 
spirit,  Paul  held  views  in  many  respects  different  from 
Christ's,  and  much  less  simple  and  popular  than  his,  he 
was  in  sympathy  with  the  spirit  of  the  Master,  and  he 
must  be  recognized  as  the  disciple  who  most  fully  under- 
stood him,  and  most  truly  carried  on  his  work.  And  yet, 
not  to  the  teaching  of  Christ,  but  to  the  teaching  of  Paul, 
does  the  church  owe  its  controlling  emphasis  upon  the 

earlier  letters.  And  yet  the  development  both  here  and  in  other  lines  in- 
volved only  details,  and  did  not  affect  his  fundamental  positions.  The  contents 
of  the  several  epistles  will  be  considered  in  the  next  chapter,  and  such  devel- 
opment as  actually  did  take  place  in  Paul's  views  will  then  appear. 

1  See  Matt.  xi.  27,  xiii.  11,  xvi.  17,  xix.  26;  Mark  xiii.  11,  etc. 

2  See  above,  p.  32  sq. 

3  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  was  directly  due  to  the  influence  of  Jesus' 
teaching  that  Paul  recognized  the  law  of  love  as  constituting  the  principle  of 
the  Christian  life. 


150  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

Saviour's  death ;  and  not  to  the  former,  but  to  the  latter, 
is  chiefly  due  its  recognition  of  him  as  a  Redeemer  from 
sin.  It  was  by  Paul,  indeed,  that  the  way  was  opened  for 
a  deeper  conception  of  the  significance  of  Christ's  work, 
and  for  a  loftier  conception  of  his  personality  than  had 
prevailed  among  his  immediate  disciples.  Even  though 
Paul  was  understood  by  very  few,  and  even  though  his 
Gospel  of  the  complete  liberty  of  the  Christian  man  found 
almost  no  acceptance,  his  emphasis  upon  the  significance 
of  Christ's  death,  and  upon  the  divineness  of  his  nature, 
had  wide  and  permanent  influence,  and  in  the  end  essen- 
tially modified  the  thinking  of  the  church  at  large.  Not 
Jesus  the  Messiah,  but  Jesus  Christ  the  divine  Saviour, 
was  thenceforth  increasingly,  as  time  passed,  the  object  of 
Christian  faith  and  worship. 


CHAPTER    IV 

THE  WOKK   OF   PAUL 
1.  THE  ROMAN  WORLD  l 

PAUL'S  field  was  the  Roman  Empire.  If  we  would 
understand  his  career  and  rightly  estimate  the  results 
accomplished  by  him,  we  must  acquaint  ourselves,  at 
least  to  some  extent,  with  the  political,  social,  and  reli- 
gious conditions  which  prevailed  within  that  empire  in  his 
day.  In  the  middle  of  the  first  century  the  dominion  of 
Rome  extended  from  Britain  to  the  African  desert,  and 
from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Euphrates,  embracing  all  the 
countries  which  bordered  upon  the  Mediterranean  Sea. 
This  vast  territory  was  divided  into  two  parts,  Italy  and 
the  provinces.  In  Italy  lived  the  ruling  nation;  in  the 
provinces,  which  were  some  thirty-five  in  number  at  the 
time  in  question,2  the  subject  peoples.  One  of  the  most 
striking  facts  about  the  empire  is  the  heterogeneity  of 
the  elements  of  which  it  was  composed.  It  was  nothing 
less  than  a  vast  conglomerate.  Within  its  borders  were 
gathered  peoples  of  the  most  diverse  origin  and  history. 
This  diversity  was  of  course  most  marked  in  the  provinces. 
In  Italy  the  Romanizing  process  had  been  going  on  for 

1  See  especially  Marquardt :  Romische  Staatsverwaltung ;  Momrasen :  Ro- 
mische  Geschichte,  Bd.  V. :  Die  Provinzen  von  Caesar  bis  Diocletian  (Eng. 
Trans.  The  Roman  Provinces,  in  two  volumes)  ;  Schiller:  Geschichte  der  Ro- 
mischen  Kaiserzeit,  Bd.  I.;  Arnold:  Roman  System  of  Provincial  Adminis- 
tration ;  and  Friedlander :  Darstellungen  aus  der  Sittenyeschichte  Roms. 

2  At  the  time  of  Claudius'  death  (54  A.D.)  there  were  thirty-five  provinces  : 
seven  in  Asia,  five  in  Africa  (Gyrene  and  the  Island  of  Crete  constituting  a 
single  province) ,  and  twenty  in  Europe,  besides  the  insular  provinces,  Cyprus, 
Sicily,  and  Sardinia.    Under  Nero  the  number  was  increased  to  thirty-six,  and 
under  later  emperors  the  number  became  still  larger,  being  increased  some- 
times by  addition,  but  chiefly  by  the  division  of  those  already  existing.    See 
the  lists  in  Marquardt's  Romische  Staatsverwaltung,  I.  S.  489  sq. 

151 


152  THE   APOSTOLIC    AGE 

centuries  and  was  practically  complete  before  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  empire.  But  in  the  provinces  there 
existed  the  greatest  and  most  manifold  variety.  In  her 
conquests  it  had  been  Rome's  policy  from  an  early  day  to 
recognize  and  so  far  as  possible  to  leave  undisturbed  the 
national  customs  of  the  people  whom  she  conquered.  She 
was  concerned  not  so  much  to  Romanize  as  to  control 
them,  and  she  was  content,  so  long  as  they  recognized  her 
authority,  paid  their  taxes,  and  remained  loyal  and  peace- 
able subjects,  to  allow  them  to  retain  much  that  they  held 
dear  in  manners,  in  laws,  and  in  religion.  The  conse- 
quence was  that  in  those  parts  of  the  world  where  there 
existed  an  old  and  highly  developed  civilization,  as  in 
Asia,  Egypt,  and  Greece,  the  immediate  changes  wrought 
by  Roman  conquest  were  in  the  main  only  external  and 
superficial.  The  traditional  habits  of  thought  and  life 
continued  much  the  same,  and  though  there  was  political 
unity,  there  were  many  marked  and  striking  diversities 
in  other  lines.  It  would  be  a  mistake  consequently  to 
think  of  the  work  of  Paul  and  other  Christian  mission- 
aries as  of  the  same  character  in  all  parts  of  the  empire. 
The  mental  and  moral  characteristics  of  the  people,  their 
habits  of  life,  their  prejudices  and  passions,  their  religious 
beliefs  and  superstitions,  varied  greatly,  and  methods 
adapted  to  one  city  might  prove  far  from  successful  in 
another.  To  evangelize  the  Roman  world  was  a  very 
different  thing  from  evangelizing  a  single  province  or  a 
closely  related  group  of  provinces,  and  Paul  showed  on 
many  occasions  his  appreciation  of  the  fact. 

And  yet,  in  spite  of  all  the  diversity,  so  far-reaching 
and  deep-seated  in  many  cases,  there  existed  at  the  same 
time  a  strong  bond  of  union  between  the  different  parts 
of  the  empire,  and  a  degree  of  homogeneity  which  is  very 
remarkable  under  the  circumstances.  In  republican  days 
the  provinces  were  little  more  than  dependencies  of  Rome. 
The  line  of  cleavage  between  Italy  and  the  rest  of  the 
world  was  very  marked.  In  Italy  lived  the  rulers ;  out- 
side of  Italy,  the  ruled ;  and  though  there  might  be 
Roman  citizens  here  and  there  in  the  provinces,  they  were 


THE   WORK  OF   PAUL  158 

few  and  far  between,  and  the  provincials  in  general  were 
regarded  by  the  inhabitants  of  Italy  with  undisguised 
contempt,  and  were  commonly  looked  upon  as  inferior 
even  to  the  freedmen  of  Rome.  The  provinces  had  value 
only  for  what  could  be  got  out  of  them,  and  if  they  were 
governed  with  leniency,  and  their  traditions  treated  with 
respect,  it  was  only  in  order  that  their  material  resources 
might  not  be  in  any  way  lessened  and  the  income  from 
them  curtailed.  But  with  the  establishment  of  the  empire 
a  new  era  in  provincial  administration  opened.  From 
mere  dependencies  the  provinces  rose  gradually  to  the 
dignity  of  integral  parts  of  the  empire.  The  emperors 
instinctively  looked  for  support  not  so  much  to  the  old 
aristocracy  of  Rome  as  to  the  people  of  the  empire  at 
large,  and  the  breaking  down  of  the  wall  between  Italy 
and  the  rest  of  the  world,  and  the  extension  of  the  privi- 
leges of  Roman  citizenship  to  an  ever-increasing  number 
of  provincials,  were  a  natural  result.  Not  until  the  time 
of  Caracalla,  in  the  early  part  of  the  third  century,  did 
Roman  citizenship  become  the  possession  of  all  free  inhabi- 
tants of  the  empire ;  but  the  process  which  culminated 
then  was  already  under  way  in  the  period  with  which 
we  are  dealing.  The  old  line  of  demarcation  still  existed, 
to  be  sure,  and  the  contempt  of  Romans  for  provincials 
still  manifested  itself;  but  the  times,  nevertheless,  were 
changed,  and  the  provinces  were  passing  rapidly  out  of 
their  original  condition  of  subjection.  The  change  was 
evident  in  many  ways.  The  number  of  Roman  citizens 
in  the  provinces  was  multiplying  rapidly ;  provincials  of 
character  and  ability  were  acquiring  an  influence  at  Rome 
which  would  have  been  impossible  in  republican  days; 
honors  and  emoluments  were  falling  to  them  ;  and  the  ranks 
of  the  nobility  were  increasingly  recruited  from  them. 
Instead  of  being  subjected  to  the  rapacity  of  irresponsible 
governors,  who  regarded  them  as  their  legitimate  prey, 
and  whose  sole  object  was  to  plunder  them  and  line  their 
own  pockets,  they  now  enjoyed  the  benefit  of  a  carefully 
adjusted  system  of  provincial  administration,  which  was 
provided  with  checks  and  safeguards  calculated  to  mini- 


154  THE    APOSTOLIC   AGE 

mize  the  danger  of  misgovernment.  Though  maladminis- 
tration was  still  frequent  enough,  the  provinces  were  in 
the  main  remarkably  well  governed  under  the  emperors, 
and  their  condition  was  exceptionally  good.  Frequently, 
when  the  people  of  Rome  itself  were  suffering  from  the 
excesses  of  a  Caligula  or  a  Nero,  the  inhabitants  of  the 
provinces  were  enjoying  the  largest  measure  of  prosperity 
and  happiness. 

The  natural  result  of  the  imperial  policy  was  the  rapid 
growth  among  the  provincials  of  a  spirit  of  loyalty  to 
Rome.  The  privilege  of  belonging  to  the  empire  was 
becoming  ever  more  widely  recognized  and  more  highly 
valued,  and  to  be  a  Roman  citizen  meant  more  in  the 
eyes  of  most  than  to  be  a  descendant  of  the  proudest  and 
most  ancient  race.  The  old  racial  pride  and  prejudice 
were  rapidly  breaking  down,  and  in  their  place  was  grow- 
ing up  a  new  patriotism  which  had  the  Roman  state  as 
its  object  and  which  found  expression  in  devotion  to  its 
interests.  The  effect  of  all  this  was  a  cosmopolitanism  of 
spirit  which  is  one  of  the  most  marked  characteristics  of 
the  age.  Everywhere  men  felt  themselves  to  be  not  mere 
natives  of  this  or  that  land,  but  citizens  of  the  world.  The 
immense  local  differences  only  contributed  to  this  cosmo- 
politan spirit,  for  in  their  contact  with  other  peoples  of 
such  various  types  men  became  increasingly  conscious 
of  their  own  limitations  and  increasingly  alive  to  that 
which  they  might  gain  from  others.  It  was  Rome's  con- 
stant effort  to  foster  this  new  sense  of  unity  and  this  new 
spirit  of  cosmopolitanism.  By  her  magnificent  system  of 
roads  she  bound  all  parts  of  the  empire  together,  and 
made  it  possible  not  only  to  reach  quickly  every  quarter  of 
her  vast  dominions  with  her  troops,  but  also  to  keep  in  con- 
stant touch  with  the  provinces  and  to  carry  on  a  most  active 
commerce  with  them.  By  removing  burdensome  restric- 
tions, she  made  trade  easy,  and  opened  up  new  markets 
for  the  products  of  the  world.  By  sending  out  colonies, 
she  established  centres  of  Roman  influence  in  various 
quarters.  And  finally,  by  organizing  the  new  imperial 
worship,  and  providing  for  its  regular  practice,  especially 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  155 

in  the  provinces,  she  supplied  a  bond  of  union  of  peculiar 
strength.  The  provincials  were  left  free  and  even  encour- 
aged to  worship  their  own  gods,  and  in  some  cases  the 
emperors  provided  for  the  public  support  of  the  local  reli- 
gions. But  the  new  imperial  cult  was  everywhere  insisted 
upon.  The  worship  of  Rome  and  the  emperor  was  made 
an  official  function,  and  upon  the  civil  authorities  was  laid 
the  responsibility  for  its  proper  observance.  The  provin- 
cials themselves  were  foremost  in  their  recognition  of  the 
deified  emperors,  and  they  vied  with  each  other  in  exhibit- 
ing their  loyalty  by  devotion  to  the  new  state  religion. 
The  prevailing  culture  of  the  world  was  Hellenic. 
From  the  time  of  Alexander's  conquests,  Greek  influence 
had  been  transforming  the  civilization  of  Egypt  and  of 
Western  Asia,  and  when  the  already  Hellenized  East 
became  a  part  of  Rome's  dominions,  the  same  influences 
speedily  made  themselves  felt  in  the  West.  The  Greeks 
lacked  the  genius  for  government  which  was  so  marked  a 
characteristic  of  the  Romans,  but  they  possessed  a  power 
of  impressing  themselves  —  their  culture,  their  ideas,  their 
beliefs  —  upon  other  peoples  to  a  degree  shared  by  no 
other  race.  They  were  a  restless,  active,  enterprising 
people,  and  it  was  not  long  after  the  opening  of  intercourse 
between  East  and  West  before  they  found  their  way  into 
all  parts  of  the  Roman  world.  In  intellectual  and  artistic 
lines  they  had  no  peers,  and  they  soon  made  their  services 
indispensable  to  the  higher  classes ;  while  their  commer- 
cial instinct  and  ability  made  them  successful  rivals  of  the 
Jews  in  all  branches  of  trade.  Through  them  the  Greek 
language  and  Hellenic  culture  were  acclimated  in  the 
Occident  as  well  as  in  the  Orient,  and  though  Roman 
civilization  was  always  dominant  west  of  the  Adriatic,  it 
was  permeated  in  no  small  degree  by  the  spirit  of  Greece. 
Thus,  in  spite  of  local  differences,  diverse  interests,  and 
racial  peculiarities,  a  man  brought  up  in  circles  where  the 
influence  of  Greek  culture  was  felt  could  not  fail  to  find 
himself  at  home  in  every  great  city  of  the  empire,  and  to 
meet  everywhere  men  of  like  sympathies  and  interests 
with  himself. 


156  THE    APOSTOLIC    AGE 

Ethically  the  Roman  Empire  was  not  in  a  wholesome 
condition.  The  decaying  civilization  of  the  Orient  was 
corrupt  to  the  last  degree,  and  the  opening  of  the  East 
to  the  influence  of  Greece  through  the  conquests  of  Alex- 
ander had  meant  the  opening  of  Greece  to  the  debasing 
effects  of  Oriental  sensuality.  When  republican  Rome 
extended  her  dominions  eastward,  there  flowed  into  Italy 
not  simply  the  wealth  and  the  culture  of  the  conquered 
peoples,  but  also  their  vices,  and  the  ethical  tone  of  the 
entire  republic  rapidly  deteriorated.  In  those  parts  of 
the  world,  especially  the  Western  world,  lying  away  from 
the  great  centres  and  off  the  great  lines  of  travel,  fru- 
gality, simplicity,  and  austerity  were  still  dominant  even 
well  on  into  imperial  times,  but  everywhere  else  luxury, 
debauchery,  and  sensuality  ran  riot.  The  wide  prevalence 
of  slavery,  the  wealth,  luxury,  and  pride  of  the  nobility,  and 
the  lack  of  a  strong,  respectable,  and  self-respecting  middle 
class  did  much  to  lower  the  general  ethical  tone  of  the 
world  at  large ;  and  the  growing  tendency  toward  urban 
life  and  the  increasing  depopulation  of  the  rural  districts 
contributed  to  the  same  result. 

And  yet,  in  spite  of  the  vice  which  had  penetrated  society 
and  was  fast  sapping  its  energy  and  vitality,  the  fact  must  be 
recognized  that  in  the  period  with  which  we  are  dealing  a 
widespread  ethical  reformation  was  in  progress.  Thinking 
men  had  become  sensible  of  the  degeneracy  of  the  age  and 
had  begun  to  labor  for  the  betterment  of  the  world.  Philoso- 
phy and  religion  were  taking  on  a  predominantly  ethical 
character,  and  noble  men  were  preaching  virtue,  and  were 
making  their  influence  felt  in  all  grades  of  society.  There 
can  be  no  doubt  that  in  the  first  century  of  the  Christian 
era  there  were  abroad  in  the  world  a  deeper  consciousness 
of  moral  evil,  and  a  more  earnest  desire  to  escape  from  its 
control,  than  there  had  ever  been.  And  so  men  were  be- 
ginning to  seek  in  religion  not  a  mere  means  of  warding 
off  calamities  and  securing  success  in  this  or  that  occupa- 
tion, but  a  way  of  escaping  from  moral  evil,  and  of  attain- 
ing to  a  higher  and  purer  and  holier  state.  Though  in 
the  changes  that  had  been  going  on  for  so  many  genera- 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  157 

tions,  the  ancient  faiths  had  lost  much  of  their  vitality, 
and  the  upper  classes  especially  were  affected  by  a  wide- 
spread scepticism  and  indifference  in  religious  matters, 
the  age  was  nevertheless  a  religious  age,  and  many  were 
striving  to  discover  in  their  ancestral  cults  that  which 
could  satisfy  their  newly  awakened  needs,  while  many 
more  were  seeking  in  the  cults  of  other  peoples  that 
which  they  could  not  find  in  their  own.  It  was  in  fact 
an  age  of  religious  individualism  and  eclecticism.  And 
while  the  new  imperial  worship  was  serving  the  purposes 
of  a  state  religion,  the  most  various  faiths  were  finding 
adherents  in  all  parts  of  the  empire. 

Among  the  faiths  which  profited  by  the  awakening  re- 
ligious interest  of  the  age  was  Judaism.1  Long  before  the 
opening  of  the  Christian  Era  the  Jews  were  scattered  over 
the  greater  part  of  the  known  world.  In  Syria,  in  Asia 
Minor,  in  Egypt,  and  in  the  far  East  they  were  especially 
numerous,  and  before  the  rise  of  the  empire  they  had 
already  found  their  way  to  the  West  and  were  numbered 
by  the  thousands  in  Rome  itself.  Wherever  they  went, 
they  worshipped  and  served  the  God  of  their  fathers,  and 
gathered  regularly  for  religious  services  on  the  Sabbath. 
When  their  numbers  were  sufficient,  they  built  a  syna- 
gogue, and  there  were  few  large  cities  in  the  empire 
which  did  not  contain  several  such  structures.  However 
widely  they  might  be  scattered,  they  retained  always  the 
warmest  affection  for  Jerusalem  and  the  Holy  Land,  and 
were  loyal  and  devout  members  of  the  household  of  Israel, 
which  had  its  centre  there.  To  the  temple  they  sent  regu- 
larly the  appointed  tribute  money,  and  thither  they  went 
in  large  numbers  to  attend  the  great  annual  feasts.  And 
yet,  devoted  as  they  were  to  the  religion  of  their  fathers, 
arid  conscious  as  they  were  that  they  belonged  to  an  elect 
people  and  possessed  a  faith  infinitely  superior  to  all  other 
faiths,  they  still  felt  in  no  small  degree  the  influence  of 
the  world  in  which  they  lived,  and  their  beliefs  and  their 

1  On  the  Judaism  of  the  Dispersion,  see  especially  Hausrath:  Neutesta- 
mentliche  Zeitgeschichte,  2te  Auflage,  Bd.  II.  S.  91  sq. ;  Schurer:  Geschichte 
desjiidischen  Volkes,  Bd.  II.  S.  493  sq.  (Enjj.  Trans.,  Div.  II.  Vol.  II.  p.  219  sq.), 
and  Morrison:  The  Jews  under  Roman  Rale,  p.  375  sq. 


158  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

practices  differed  more  and  more  as  time  passed  from 
the  beliefs  and  practices  of  their  Palestinian  brethren. 
There  were  undoubtedly  multitudes  of  them  who  endeav- 
ored to  observe  in  all  their  strictness  all  the  ritual  ordi- 
nances of  the  law,  and  to  hold  themselves  rigidly  aloof 
from  their  Gentile  neighbors ;  but  there  was  a  widespread 
tendency  to  soften  somewhat  the  rigor  of  ceremonial  re- 
quirements in  order  to  permit  a  larger  measure  of  inter- 
course with  those  among  whom  they  lived.  The  desire 
also  made  its  appearance  at  an  early  day  to  influence  the 
heathen  world,  and  to  propagate  the  true  faith  among  the 
Gentiles.  But  as  is  very  apt  to  be  the  case  when  one's  pur- 
pose is  propagandism,  emphasis  was  laid  increasingly  upon 
the  more  universal  and  essential  elements  of  Judaism,  and 
the  ceremonial  and  ritual  features  were  proportionately  mini- 
mized. The  Jews  in  question  did  not  commonly  cease  ob- 
serving the  ceremonial  law  themselves,  but  many  of  them 
taught  that  the  essence  of  Judaism  was  belief  in  the  one  true 
God,  and  a  life  of  purity,  honesty,  and  uprightness  in  the 
confidence  that  God  will  reward  the  good  and  punish  the 
wicked  in  a  future  life.  Emphasizing  such  truths  as  these, 
it  was  possible  for  them  to  appeal  strongly  to  earnest  and 
conscientious  souls,  and  in  spite  of  the  dislike  with  which 
they  were  so  commonly  regarded  and  the  contempt  which 
their  peculiar  rites  and  ceremonies  often  inspired,  they 
seemed  to  many  to  offer  just  that  which  was  most  needed 
by  the  world. 

Their  propagandism  was  carried  on  with  the  utmost 
energy  and  enthusiasm,  and  no  means  were  left  untried. 
Not  simply  did  they  endeavor  to  influence  their  neigh- 
bors and  acquaintances  one  by  one ;  the  scholars  and 
writers  among  them  made  use  of  all  varieties  of  literary 
composition  for  the  advancement  of  the  work.1  The  great 
philosophers,  poets,  and  tragedians  of  earlier  days  were  made 
to  declare  their  faith  in  the  God  of  the  Jews  and  their 
approval  of  the  principles  of  Judaism ;  and  books  were 
written  bearing  the  names  of  noted  Greek  and  Latin 

1  Upon  the  Hellenistic  Jewish  literature,  see  Schurer,  I.e.  II.  S.  094  sq.  (Eng. 
Trans.,  Div.  II.  Vol.  III.  p.  156  sq.). 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  159 

authors  long  dead.  Among  these  pseudonymous  produc- 
tions the  most  remarkable  and  influential  was  a  collection 
of  so-called  Sibylline  Oracles.  The  oracles  of  the  Sibyl, 
popularly  supposed  to  have  been  an  inspired  priestess  of 
Apollo,  were  highly  esteemed  in  the  ancient  world,  and 
her  alleged  prophetic  powers  were  turned  to  good  service 
by  various  Jewish  writers,  who  made  her  a  preacher  of 
the  true  faith,  and  a  prophet  of  the  blessedness  that  was 
one  day  to  be  enjoyed  by  all  that  honored  and  served  the 
God  of  the  Jews,  and  of  the  misery  that  was  to  overtake 
the  worshippers  of  idols.  These  Oracles,  which  were  not 
the  work  of  one  man  nor  of  one  period,  must  have  ex- 
erted a  tremendous  influence  upon  all  that  accepted  them 
as  genuine,  as  multitudes  doubtless  did. 

But  Judaism  appealed  not  simply  to  the  people  at  large, 
it  addressed  itself  also  to  the  philosophers  of  the  age 
and  endeavored  to  show  its  own  superiority  to  all  the 
systems  of  antiquity.  It  was  the  claim  of  many  Jewish 
scholars,  among  whom  Philo  of  Alexandria  was  the  most 
noted  of  all,  that  Judaism  was  the  supreme  philosophy 
and  the  Jewish  Scriptures  the  original  storehouse  of  all 
the  truth  known  to  the  sages  of  the  world.  By  the  ap- 
plication to  the  Old  Testament  of  the  allegorical  method 
of  interpretation  which  was  familiar  to  the  writers  of 
the  day,  there  were  drawn  from  it  the  great  truths  taught 
by  Socrates  and  Plato  and  others  like  them,  and  the  claim 
was  set  up  that  from  Moses  and  the  prophets  they  had 
learned  all  the  truth  they  knew.  But  it  was  not  so 
much  by  such  efforts  to  vindicate  the  philosophic  character 
of  Judaism,  that  the  Jewish  propagandists  influenced  the 
world.  Their  pure  and  lofty  monotheism,  their  ethical 
ideals,  and  their  emphasis  upon  the  doctrine  of  rewards 
and  punishments  beyond  the  grave,  reinforced  by  their 
assertion  of  a  divine  revelation  guaranteeing  all  their 
teaching,  appealed  most  widely  and  most  powerfully  to 
the  better  spirits  among  those  with  whom  they  came  in 
contact,  and  it  may  well  be  believed  that  the  writings 
of  the  great  Hebrew  prophets  exerted  a  far  larger  influence 
than  the  philosophical  productions  of  Philo  and  his  school. 


160  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

It  may  be  doubted  whether  the  Jews  ever  secured  a 
very  large  number  of  proselytes  in  the  full  sense,  that  is, 
of  those  who  accepted  circumcision  and  assumed  the  obli- 
gation to  observe  the  law  in  all  its  parts,  for  the  rite  of 
circumcision  was  exceedingly  repugnant  to  the  world  in 
general.  But  it  is  certain  that  they  attached  to  themselves 
a  large  multitude  of  devout  worshippers,  who  attended  the 
services  of  the  synagogue  and  served  and  honored  their 
God  as  the  only  true  God.1  Many  such  adherents  seem 
to  have  observed  the  Sabbath  and  some  of  the  Jewish 
laws  respecting  food ; 2  while  others  contented  themselves 
with  conforming  to  the  moral  precepts  of  the  Decalogue, 
or  with  the  general  practice  of  justice,  holiness,  and  mercy. 

It  was  among  these  Gentile  adherents  of  Judaism  that 
Christianity  had  its  most  rapid  spread.  They  were  pre- 
pared for  it  by  their  belief  in  the  God  who  was  worshipped 
both  by  Jews  and  Christians,  and  by  their  acquaintance 
with  the  Old  Testament,  which  they  heard  read  in  the 
synagogue  week  after  week.  Moreover,  they  had  no 
native  attachment  to  Judaism  and  no  ancestral  traditions 
which  made  it  difficult  for  them  to  break  loose  from  the 
synagogue ;  and  when  Christianity  came  with  its  assertion 
that  the  prophecies  contained  in  the  Divine  Scriptures 
were  already  fulfilled,  and  that  the  promised  consumma- 
tion was  already  at  hand,  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that 
they  welcomed  it  warmly,  and  found  in  it,  especially  when 
preached  by  those  who  recognized  the  full  and  equal  rights 
of  a  Gentile  Christianity,  that  which  satisfied  them  even 
better  than  Judaism,  whose  blessings  they  could  enjoy 
only  in  part  so  long  as  they  hesitated  to  receive  circum- 
cision and  to  become  fully  incorporated  into  the  family  of 
Israel.  How  much  the  existence  of  such  circles  of  God- 
fearing men  and  women  in  all  the  great  cities  of  the  em- 
pire must  have  meant  to  Paul,  we  can  easily  imagine,  and 
we  shall  see  that  he  was  fully  alive  to  the  opportunity 
offered  by  them. 

1  These  Gentile  worshippers  of  the  God  of  the  Jews  were  commonly  spoken 
of  as  "  Devout  and  God-fearing  men."  Cf.,  e.g.,  Acts  x.  2,  and  Josephus:  Ant. 
xiv.  7,  2;  B.  ,7.11.  18,  2. 

2  Cf.,  e.g.,  Josephus:  Contra  Apionem,  II.  39. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  161 


2.   THE  FIRST  THREE  YEARS  OF  PAUL'S  CHRISTIAN  LIFE 

The  career  of  Paul  during  the  years  immediately  suc- 
ceeding his  conversion  is  involved  in  obscurity.  We 
learn  from  his  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,1  that  he  went 
first  of  all  to  Arabia  and  returned  again  after  a  time  to 
Damascus.  For  what  purpose  he  visited  Arabia,  by  which 
is  meant,  probably,  the  desert  country  lying  to  the  south- 
east of  Damascus,  and  how  long  he  remained  there,  we  are 
not  informed.  The  account  in  Acts,  which  betrays  no 
knowledge  of  such  a  visit,  seems  to  imply  that  it  was  of 
brief  duration  and  of  little  or  no  public  significance,  and 
Paul's  own  reference  to  it  is  not  out  of  harmony  with  such 
a  supposition.  It  can  hardly  be  supposed  that  he  went 
to  Arabia  to  do  missionary  work,  for  it  was  the  last  place 
which  he  would  have  chosen  for  such  a  purpose.  It  is 
much  more  probable  that 'he  went  thither  in  order  to  re- 
flect in  solitude  upon  the  great  change  that  had  come  upon 
him,  and  to  determine  its  bearing  upon  his  subsequent 
career.  The  issues  involved  were  too  momentous  to  be 
treated  lightly,  and  Paul  was  the  last  man  to  reverse  his 
entire  course  of  conduct  without  considering  carefully  all 
that  such  a  reversal  meant,  and  without  making  very  clear 
to  himself  the  new  principles  by  which  he  was  thenceforth  to 
live  and  labor.  He  could  not  be  satisfied  with  anything  less 
than  a  thoroughgoing  understanding  of  the  Gospel  which 
had  been  revealed  to  him,  and  of  its  bearing  upon  his  own 
life.  But  such  an  understanding  could  hardly  have  been 
attained  without  careful  meditation,  and  it  is  quite  un- 
likely therefore  that  he  plunged  into  active  evangelistic 
work  immediately  after  his  conversion.  It  may  fairly  be 
assumed,  then,  that  it  was  in  Arabia  that  Paul  thought  out 
his  Gospel,  and  that  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  he 
mentions  his  visit  thither,  just  because  it  was  there,  in 
communion  with  himself  and  with  his  God,  and  not  at  the 
feet  of  the  apostles  in  Jerusalem,  that  he  learned  his  mes- 
sage and  received  his  equipment  as  a  preacher  of  the 
Gospel  of  Christ. 

i  Gal.  i.  17,  19- 

If 


162  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

Returning  from  Arabia  to  Damascus,  he  doubtless  began 
at  once  to  preach  Christ  in  the  synagogues,  as  recorded  in 
the  Book  of  Acts.1  That  he  should  have  begun  his  work 
among  his  own  countrymen  was  entirely  natural,  and 
there  is  no  reason  whatever  to  doubt  the  accuracy  of 
Luke's  account.  That  he  labored  for  the  conversion  of 
Jews  as  well  as  of  Gentiles  is  proved  by  his  own  words  in 
1  Cor.  ix.  20,  and  Rom.  xi.  14,  and  the  second  passage 
indicates  that  he  was  even  more  deeply  concerned  in  the 
conversion  of  the  former  than  of  the  latter.  The  princi- 
ples of  his  Gospel,  to  be  sure,  were  such  that  it  was  impos- 
sible for  him  to  think  of  the  Jewish  law  as  having  any 
binding  authority  over  a  Christian  disciple  whether  Jew 
or  Gentile ;  it  was  inevitable  that  he  should  regard  the 
"  middle  wall  of  partition "  which  separated  the  Jews 
and  the  Gentiles  as  broken  down,  and  should  recognize 
the  right  of  the  latter  to  become  Christian  disciples  with- 
out first  becoming  Jews.  Indeed,  all  this  must  have 
become  clear  to  him  even  before  he  returned  to  Damascus  ; 
for  it  was  necessarily  involved  in  the  Gospel  as  he  under- 
stood it,  and  he  could  not  have  remained  even  temporarily 
blind  to  it.  But  such  an  unqualified  recognition  of  the 
rights  of  a  Gentile  Christianity  might  exist,  and  yet  Paul 
not  feel  himself  bound  to  turn  from  the  Jews  to  the  Gen- 
tiles, and  to  labor  exclusively  for  the  evangelization  of  the 
latter.  With  his  ardent  patriotism  and  with  his  profound 
love  for  his  own  countrymen,  to  which  he  bears  eloquent 
testimony  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  it  would  have  been 
unnatural  for  him  to  do  so.  We  should  expect  rather  to 
find  him  laboring  first  and  foremost  for  the  conversion  of 
Jews,  and  only  secondarily  for  the  conversion  of  foreign 
peoples.  The  fact  that  he  became  finally  the  apostle  to  the 
Gentiles  in  a  peculiar  sense,  and  that  his  great  life  work 
was  done  among  them,  and  not  among  his  own  country- 
men, while  made  possible  by  his  belief  that  the  disciples 
of  Christ  were  free  from  all  obligation  to  observe  the 
Jewish  law,  was  not  directly  due  to  that  belief,  but  was 
the  result  of  a  combination  of  circumstances  which  will  be 

1  Acts  ix.  19  sq. 


THE  WORK   OF   PAUL  163 

referred  to  later.  We  may  safely  assume,  then,  that  upon 
his  return  from  Arabia  to  Damascus  Paul  began  preaching 
the  Gospel  of  Christ  among  those  whom  he  knew  and 
loved  best,  among  his  fellow-members  of  the  household  of 
Israel.  That  he  should  feel  himself  called  to  preach  was 
inevitable.  A  man  of  his  character  and  talents  could  not 
remain  silent  after  the  great  change  which  he  had  experi- 
enced. His  first  impulse  must  be  to  tell  others  of  the 
Messiah  who  had  been  revealed  to  him,  and  as  he  had 
believed  himself  divinely  commissioned  to  exterminate  the 
followers  of  Jesus,  he  must  now  believe  himself  divinely 
commissioned  to  propagate  the  faith  which  he  had  been 
destroying.  Ceasing  to  be  a  persecutor,  he  could  not  be 
satisfied  to  be  a  mere  adherent ;  he  must  become  a  cham- 
pion of  the  new  sect. 

His  earliest  Christian  preaching,  according  to  the  Book 
of  Acts,  agreed  substantially  with  the  preaching  of  the 
primitive  disciples  of  Jerusalem,  in  so  far  as  he  proclaimed 
and  endeavored  to  prove,  as  they  had  done,  the  Messiah- 
ship  of  Jesus.  It  was  with  this  truth  that  we  should  ex- 
pect him  to  begin.  "  Is  Jesus  indeed  the  Messiah  ?  "  was  the 
burning  question,  and  none  of  the  disciples,  least  of  all  Paul, 
could  refrain  from  stating  and  restating  his  reasons  for  an- 
swering that  fundamental  question  in  the  affirmative.  But 
we  may  well  believe  that  as  he  had  found  in  the  crucifixion 
of  Jesus  his  chief  ground  of  offence  against  those  who  pro- 
claimed him  as  the  Messiah,  he  would  lay  especial  stress 
upon  that  crucifixion  when  he  began  himself  to  preach  the 
faith  that  he  had  once  so  bitterly  denounced ;  and  that  he 
would  not  simply  content  himself  with  showing  that  Jesus 
was  the  Messiah  in  spite  of  his  death,  but  would  emphasize 
the  fact  that  the  death  of  Jesus  constituted  an  essential 
part  of  his  Messianic  work.  We  shall  be  safe  in  assuming, 
therefore,  in  the  absence  of  direct  information  upon  the 
subject,  that  he  preached  to  the  Jews  of  Damascus,  at  the 
very  beginning  of  his  Christian  career,  the  Gospel  which 
he  preached  later  at  Corinth,  and  which  he  sums  up  con- 
cisely in  the  early  verses  of  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  his 
First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians:  "Now  I  make  known 


164  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

unto  you,  brethren,  the  gospel  which  I  preached  unto  you, 
which  also  ye  received,  wherein  also  ye  stand ;  for  I  de- 
livered unto  you  first  of  all  that  which  also  I  received,  how 
that  Christ  died  for  our  sins  according  to  the  scriptures ; 
and  that  he  was  buried,  and  that  he  hath  been  raised  on 
the  third  day  according  to  the  scriptures." 

We  are  not  informed  whether  Paul's  evangelistic  work 
in  Damascus  was  crowned  with  marked  success,  but  the 
fact  that  he  was  obliged  to  flee  from  the  city  in  order  to 
escape  arrest,  as  related  in  Acts  ix.  23  sq.,  and  2  Cor.  xi. 
32  sq.,1  indicates  that  he  had  become  sufficiently  prominent 
as  a  Christian  preacher  to  attract  public  notice  and  to  draw 
upon  himself  the  hostility  of  the  city  authorities,2  who 

1  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Acts  ix.  23,  and  2  Cor.  xi.  32,  refer  to  the  same 
event,  and  that  the  incident  took  place  at  the  time  indicated  in  Gal.  i.  18.    It 
has  been  claimed  that  the  account  of  the  incident  in  Acts  is  based  solely  upon 
the  passage  in  2  Cor.,  and  that  consequently  there  is  no  sufficient  ground  for 
assuming  that  the  event  occurred  at  the  time  indicated  in  Acts  rather  than  at 
some  other  time.    But  in  view  of  the  fact  that  so  many  of  the  occurrences 
recorded  in  2  Cor.  xi.  find  no  mention  in  the  Acts,  there  is  little  reason  to  sup- 
pose that  this  particular  incident  was  taken  from  that  chapter.    The  account 
in  Acts,  therefore,  may  fairly  be  regarded  as  supplementing  the  reference  in 
2  Corinthians,  by  supplying  the  time  at  which  the  occurrence  mentioned  took 
place.  It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  no  other  time  so  well  fits  the  circumstances. 

2  In  2  Cor.  xi.  32,  Paul  says  that  the  ethnarch  under  Aretas  the  king  guarded 
Damascus  to  prevent  his  escape.    This  statement,  taken  in  connection  with 
the  fact  that  while  many  coins  of  Damascus  with  the  imperial  superscription 
are  in  existence,  no  such  coins  have  been  found  dating  from  the  years  33-62, 
has  led  some  scholars  to  the  conclusion  that  Damascus  belonged  during  the 
reigns  of  Caligula  and  Claudius  to  the  kingdom  of    Arabia,  over  which 
Aretas  IV.  ruled  until  40  A.D.,  the  assumption  being  that  Caligula,  who  came 
to  the  throne  in  37,  gave  the  city  to  Aretas.    See  Schiirer:  Geschichte  des 
judischen  Volkes,  I.  617  sq. ;  11.86;  (Eng.  Trans.,  Div.  I.  Vol.11,  p.  35(5 sq.,  and 
Div.  II.  Vol.  I.  p.  98).    But  such  a  conclusion  is  hardly  warranted  by  the 
evidence ;  and  if  my  chronology  of  Paul's  life  is  correct,  the  flight  from  Damas- 
cus falls  within  the  reign  of  Tiberius  (about  35  A.D.),  when  it  cannot  be  sup- 
posed that  any  change  had  taken  place  in  the  status  of  Damascus.    Mommsen 
(Ri)inische  Geschichte,  3te  Auflage,  Bd.  V.  S.  476)  remarks  that  the  coins  bear- 
ing the  head  of  the  emperor,  while  they  show  that  Damascus  was  dependent 
upon  the  Roman  Empire,  do  not  show  that  it  was  independent  of  the  Arabian 
king.    Aretas  therefore  may  have  been  in  control  of  Damascus,  as  Herod  was 
in  control  of  Jerusalem,  while  at  the  same  time  the  city  was  subject  to  Rome. 
There  is,  consequently,  no  ground  in  Paul's  statement,  that  the  ethnarch  under 
Aretas  guarded  the  city,  for  the  assumption  that  Damascus  was  at  the  time 
not  under  Roman  dominion,  as  it  certainly  was  in  earlier  and  later  years.    No 
argument  therefore  can  be  drawn  from  the  incident  as  to  the  date  of  Paul's 
conversion.    The  incident  may  have  occurred  as  well  in  the  year  35  as  in  38. 

On  the  other  hand,  Paul's  statement  in  Gal.  i.  17,  that  he  went  from 
Damascus  to  Arabia,  cauuot  be  employed  to  prove,  as  it  is  by  O.  Holtzmann. 


THE   WORK  OF  PAUL  165 

perhaps  saw  that  his  preaching  was  creating  a  disturbance 
among  the  Jewish  population  of  the  city  which  might 
result  in  riot  and  bloodshed.  In  his  Epistle  to  the  Gala- 
tians  1  Paul  puts  his  departure  from  Damascus  three  years 
after  his  conversion,2  but  he  says  nothing  of  the  circum- 
stances under  which  he  left  the  city.  He  informs  the 
Galatians,  however,  that  upon  leaving  Damascus  he  went 
up  to  Jerusalem  to  visit  Cephas  and  tarried  with  him 
fifteen  days,  but  that  he  saw  no  other  apostle  except 
James  the  Lord's  brother.  It  is  evident  from  the  passage 
in  Galatians  that  the  purpose  of  his  visit  to  Jerusalem  was 
not  to  preach  the  Gospel  there,  but  to  make  the  acquaint- 
ance of  Peter.3  That  he  should  desire  to  know  personally 
the  leading  man  among  the  disciples  was  certainly  most 
natural,  and  it  need  cause  no  surprise  that  when  a  con- 
venient opportunity  offered  itself,  he  took  advantage  of  it. 

(Neutestamentliche  Zeitgeschichte,  S.  97  sq.),  that  Damascus  was  at  that  time 
not  subject  to  the  Arabian  king ;  for  the  city  might  be  subject  to  him  or  under 
his  protection  and  yet  not  be  an  integral  part  of  Arabia  (see  Mommsen,  ibid.). 
The  ethnarch  to  whom  Paul  refers  would  seem,  then,  to  have  been  the  repre- 
sentative of  Aretas'  authority  in  the  city  and  as  such  at  the  head  of  the 
municipal  government  or  at  any  rate  in  possession  of  police  jurisdiction. 
Had  he  not  held  such  a  position,  he  would  have  had  neither  cause  nor  right  to 
guard  the  city  as  he  did.  Holtzmann's  assertion  that  the  term  "  ethnarch  "  can- 
not be  understood  in  so  broad  a  sense,  but  must  denote  simply  the  head  of  the 
Arabian  colony  in  the  city  (I.e.  S.  97),  is  hardly  justified.  Archelaus,  for  in- 
stance, was  given  the  title  Ethnarch  by  Augustus  (see  Josephus:  B.  J.  II.  63; 
and  compare  the  note  of  Heinrici:  Das  Zweite  Sendschreiben  an  die  Korin- 
thier,  S.481). 

1  Gal.  i.  18. 

2  It  is  possible,  as  Weizsacker  maintains  (I.e.  S.  81),  that  Paul  reckoned  the 
"three  years"  not  from  his  conversion,  but  from  the  time  when  he  returned 
to  Damascus  from  Arabia.    But  if  that  be  the  case,  it  may  fairly  be  assumed 
that  the  sojourn  in  Arabia  was  of  no  great  duration ;  for  otherwise,  in  the  in- 
terest of  his  argument,  which  was  to  show  that  he  waited  a  long  time  before 
seeing  the  older  apostles,  he  would  have  specified  the  length  of  his  stay  there. 
From  whichever  point  therefore  the  "  three  years  "  be  reckoned,  the  result  is 
practically  the  same. 

3  iffTopfaai.  K770aV    It  is  hardly  possible  in  the  light  of  Gal.  i.  19,  22,  to 
suppose  that  Paul  did  such  public  evangelistic  work  in  Jerusalem  as  he  is 
represented  as  doing  in  Acts  ix.  28  sq.    He  was  demonstrating  in  the  Galatian 
passage  his  independence  of  man  and  his  sole  dependence  upon  God  for  the 
Gospel  which  he  preached ;  and  it  would  have  been  decidedly  disingenuous 
for  him  to  speak  as  he  did  concerning  his  visit  to  Jerusalem  if  he  had  mingled 
freely  with  the  disciples  of  the  Mother  Church.    Moreover,  his  statement  in 
verse  22,  that  he  was  still  unknown  to  the  churches  of  Judea,  must  include  the 
church  of  Jerusalem,  for  otherwise  it  would  have  no  bearing  upon  the  matter 
in  hand,  and  could  only  mislead  his  readers. 


166  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

The  fact  that  he  waited  as  long  as  he  did  before  visiting 
Jerusalem  shows  that  he  did  not  regard  himself  as  in  any 
way  dependent  upon  Peter  or  the  other  apostles  for  author- 
ity to  preach  the  Gospel,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose 
that  he  sought  Peter  for  the  purpose  of  securing  his 
sanction,  of  the  wrork  that  he  was  doing ;  for  there  is  no 
hint  that  the  need  of  such  sanction  was  felt  by  any  one 
at  this  early  stage.  On  the  other  hand,  the  fact  that  Paul 
waited  three  years  before  going  up  to  Jerusalem  does  not 
prove  that  he  purposely  avoided  the  Christians  of  Jerusa- 
lem, with  the  design  of  asserting  his  independence  of  them; 
for  had  he  had  such  a  design,  he  would  have  remained 
away  still  longer.  The  controversy,  which  subsequently 
led  him  to  emphasize  his  independence,  as  he  does  in 
the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  belonged  to  a  much  later 
period,  and  he  could  hardly  have  foreseen  it  at  so  early  a 
date.  It  is  probable  that  he  was  too  much  absorbed  in 
his  evangelistic  work  in  Damascus  to  think  of  interrupting 
it  for  the  purpose  of  visiting  Peter  or  anybody  else,  and 
that  he  conceived  the  very  natural  idea  of  making  Peter's 
acquaintance  only  when  he  was  compelled  to  leave  the 
city  and  was  thus  at  least  temporarily  prevented  from  con- 
tinuing the  work  to  which  he  had  been  devoting  himself 
with  such  enthusiasm.  That  he  saw  none  of  the  apostles 
except  Peter  and  James  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  and 
apparently  very  few  of  the  disciples,  and  that  his  visit  was 
of  such  short  duration  may  have  been  due  to  the  fact 
that  the  church  of  Jerusalem  was  still  undergoing  perse- 
cution and  that  most  of  the  Christians  were  absent  or  in 
hiding ;  or  it  may  have  been  due  to  the  desire  of  conceal- 
ing from  the  authorities  the  presence  in  the  city  of  a  man 
who  had  fled  as  a  fugitive  from  Damascus. 

The  bearing  of  this  visit  upon  Paul's  subsequent  career 
and  upon  his  relations  to  the  Mother  Church  it  is  difficult 
to  determine.  It  is  inconceivable  that  he  can  have  been 
simply  a  listener  during  those  fifteen  days  of  converse 
with  Peter.  He  must  have  learned  much  from  Peter,  it 
is  true,  about  the  Christ  whom  he  had  never  seen  in  the 
flesh,  and  about  the  views  of  Christianity  that  prevailed 


THE   WORK   OF  PAUL  167 

among  the  original  disciples;  but  he  must  also  have  im- 
parted much  to  him  out  of  his  own  experience,  an  expe- 
rience which  could  not  fail  to  be  of  surpassing  interest  to 
all  that  knew  of  his  former  hostility  and  of  his  sudden 
conversion.  But  he  could  hardly  have  related  that  expe- 
rience to  Peter  without  presenting  at  least  the  main  out- 
lines of  his  Christian  belief,  to  which  that  experience 
had  given  rise.  And  yet  in  the  light  of  Paul's  explicit 
statement,1  that  at  a  subsequent  visit  he  laid  before  the 
leaders  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem  the  Gospel  which  he 
preached  among  the  Gentiles,  and  secured  their  recogni- 
tion of  his  divine  commission,  and  in  view  of  his  silence 
touching  the  subject  of  his  conference  on  this  earlier  occa- 
sion, it  can  hardly  be  supposed  that  at  this  time  Peter 
either  approved  or  disapproved  that  Gospel.  Had  he  ap- 
proved it,  Paul  would  certainly  not  have  failed  to  inform 
his  Galatian  readers  of  th*  fact ;  while  had  he  declared  his 
disapproval,  the  churches  of  Judea  could  hardly  have  glori- 
fied God  for  the  work  that  Paul  was  doing,  and  he  could 
not  have  been  left  so  long  unmolested  in  the  labors  which 
he  was  carrying  on  among  the  Gentiles.  It  is,  in  fact, 
altogether  unlikely  that  Paul  appeared  in  Jerusalem,  on 
the  occasion  of  his  first  visit,  in  the  r61e  of  an  apostle  to 
the  Gentiles,  or  of  a  champion  of  Gentile  Christianity.  It 
is  much  more  probable  that  the  "  Gospel  of  the  uncir- 
cumcision "  was  not  discussed  at  all,  or  if  it  was,  that 
it  Avas  not  treated  either  by  Peter  or  by  Paul  as  a 
matter  of  immediate  and  pressing  importance.  And  yet 
it  is  not  altogether  impossible  that  Peter's  interview  with 
Paul,  which  must  in  any  case  have  suggested  broader  and 
more  spiritual  views  of  the  nature  of  Christianity  than  had 
prevailed  in  the  Mother  Church,  prepared  the  mind  of  the 
former  at  least  in  some  measure  for  the  Cornelius  incident. 
It  may  be  that  he  found  it  easier  to  pursue  the  course  he 
did  on  that  occasion  because  of  the  suggestions  he  had  re- 
ceived from  Paul,  and  that  later,  when  Paul  had  begun  his 
great  missionary  career  among  the  Gentiles,  the  knowledge 
which  Peter  had  already  gained  of  the  fundamental  prin- 

i  Gal.  ii.  1  sq. 


168  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

ciples  of  Paul's  Christianity  prepared  him  to  sympathize 
heartily  with  the  apostle  to  the  Gentiles  and  to  approve  his 
work  unreservedly.  It  is  certainly  not  without  significance 
that  it  was  Peter  of  whom  Paul  saw  most  during  that  fort- 
night in  Jerusalem,  and  that  it  was  Peter  who  of  all  the 
disciples  of  Jerusalem  known  to  us  showed  himself  most 
in  sympathy  with  Christian  work  among  the  Gentiles. 

3.   PAUL  IN  SYRIA  AND  CILICIA 

After  a  stay  of  fifteen  days  in  Jerusalem,  Paul  left  the 
city  and  went  into  the  regions  of  Syria  and  Cilicia,1  two 
contiguous  Roman  provinces  whose  capitals  were  respec- 
tively Antioch  and  Tarsus,  Paul's  native  place.  The  inter- 
val of  eleven  years2  which  elapsed  between  this  time  and 
his  second  visit  to  Jerusalem,  recorded  in  Gal.  ii.  1  sq.,  Paul 
passes  over  without  a  word.  He  was  concerned  not  to  give 
his  readers  a  record  of  his  life  and  works,  but  only  to  show 
them  that  he  had  received  his  Gospel  from  God  and  not  from 
man,  and  for  that  purpose  it  was  enough  for  him  to  enumer- 
ate his  visits  to  Jerusalem,  during  which  he  might  be  sup- 
posed to  have  learned  something  from  the  older  apostles, 
or  from  the  Mother  Church.  Our  knowledge  of  this  inter- 
val is  very  meagre.  That  the  time  was  spent  in  active 
Christian  work  there  can  be  little  doubt,  but  of  much  of 
the  work  we  know  absolutely  nothing.  In  Acts  xi.  22  sq., 
it  is  recorded  that  when  Barnabas  came  down  from  Jeru- 
salem to  Antioch  and  found  Gentile  Christianity  already 
existing  there,  he  went  to  Tarsus  and  brought  Paul  thence 
to  Antioch,  and  that  the  two  men  labored  together  in  the 
latter  city  for  a  whole  year.  There  is  nothing  intrinsically 
improbable  in  this  narrative.  As  was  remarked  in  a  pre- 
vious chapter,  the  indications  are  that  Gentile  Christianity 

1  Gal.  i.  21. 

2  It  is  possible  to  date  the  "  fourteen  years  "  of  Gal.  ii.  1,  either  from  Paul's 
conversion  or  from  his  first  visit  to  Jerusalem,  three  years  later.    The  latter 
alternative  is  adopted  by  the  great  majority  of  scholars,  and  they  therefore 
put  Paul's  second  visit  to  Jerusalem  seventeen  years  after  his  conversion. 
But  the  date  which  I  assume  for  Paul's  death  (see  p.  419,  below)  leads  me  to 
reckon  the  fourteen  years  from  the  earlier  date  and  thus  to  separate  his  Jeru- 
salem visits  by  only  eleven  years.    Ramsay  dons   the   same,  but   on   other 
grounds  (see  his  St.  Paul,  the  Traveller  and  the  Roman  Citizen,  pp.  55,  1582). 


THE   WORK  OF   PAUL  169 

in  Antioch  did  not  owe  its  origin  to  Paul,  and  as  we  know 
from  Gal.  ii.  that  he  and  Barnabas  were  at  home  there  some 
years  later,  at  the  time  of  the  council  of  Jerusalem,  there  is 
no  reason  to  doubt  that  he  may  have  been  brought  thither 
by  Barnabas  under  the  circumstances  related  in  Acts, 
and  may  have  labored  there  some  time  before  starting 
upon  the  missionary  tour  recorded  in  Acts  xiii.  and  xiv. 
Previous  to  that  time  he  had  doubtless  been  doing  Chris- 
tian work  in  his  own  city  Tarsus,  and  possibly  in  the  coun- 
try round  about,  for  it  was  there  that  Barnabas  is  said  to 
have  found  him,  and  he  tells  us  himself  that  he  had  spent 
at  least  a  part  of  the  time  between  his  first  and  second  visits 
to  Jerusalem  in  Cilicia.1  That  Barnabas  was  anxious  to 
secure  Paul's  assistance  for  the  work  in  Antioch  would 
seem  to  indicate  that  the  latter  had  already  shown  himself 
a  zealous  and  efficient  laborer,  and  knowing  his  character 
and  his  subsequent  career  as  we  do,  we  cannot  doubt  that 
such  was  the  case. 

These  early  years,  about  which  we  know  so  little,  must 
have  been  of  great  importance  to  Paul  himself;  for  though 
in  the  existing  records  they  have  been  entirely  overshadowed 
by  the  years  that  followed,  and  though  we  have  no  informa- 
tion of  the  work  accomplished,  it  was  during  this  time  that 
the  great  apostle  was  preparing  himself  for  the  marvellous 
achievements  of  later  days.  It  was  not  as  a  novice  that 
he  set  out  upon  his  missionary  tours  which  resulted  in  the 
evangelization  of  so  large  a  part  of  the  Gentile  world,  but 
as  a  preacher  and  worker  of  long  and  varied  experience,  who 
had  familiarized  himself  thoroughly  with  the  most  effective 
evangelistic  methods,  and  who  knew  not  only  the  Gospel 
which  he  had  to  preach,  but  the  men  to  whom  he  had  to 
preach  it.  The  Paul  of  the  great  missionary  journeys  in 
Asia  Minor,  Macedonia,  and  Greece  presupposes  the  Paul  of 
the  quieter,  but  hardly  less  busy  years  spent  in  Syria  and 
Cilicia.  The  apostle  whose  field  was  the  Roman  Empire 
presupposes  the  humbler  evangelist  whose  field  was  only  a 
province.  Had  he  not  been  doing  effective  service  during 
those  years  of  which  we  know  so  little,  the  record  of  his 

i  Gal.  i.  21. 


170  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE 

later  years  would  not  be  so  illustrious  as  it  is.  We  may 
assume,  then,  that  from  the  time  of  his  departure  from 
Jerusalem,  some  three  years  after  his  conversion,  until  the 
beginning  of  his  missionary  tour  recorded  in  Acts  xiii.  and 
xiv.,  Paul  was  actively  and  more  or  less  constantly  engaged 
in  evangelistic  work  in  the  "  regions  of  Syria  and  Cilicia." 
Between  the  beginning  of  Paul's  work  in  Antioch  and 
his  departure  upon  the  missionary  tour  described  in  Acts 
xiii.  sq.,  the  author  of  the  Acts  inserts  a  visit  to  Jerusa- 
lem, recording  that  in  consequence  of  the  impending 
famine,  which  the  prophet  Agabus  had  foretold,  the  An- 
tiochian  Christians  sent  Barnabas  and  Saul  to  Jerusalem, 
to  carry  contributions  for  the  relief  of  the  brethren  that 
dwelt  in  Judea.1  This  journey  has  caused  scholars  a  great 
deal  of  trouble.  It  has  been  generally  recognized  that  the 
visit  to  Jerusalem,  to  which  Paul  refers  in  Gal.  i.  18,  is 
recorded  by  the  author  of  the  Acts  in  ix.  26  sq.,  and  that 
the  visit  referred  to  in  Gal.  ii.  1  sq.  is  described  in  Acts 
xv.  In  the  present  chapter,  then,  we  have  apparently  the 
account  of  a  journey  to  Jerusalem  falling  in  the  interval 
between  the  two  which  Paul  mentions.  But  it  is  clear 
that  Paul  intended  the  Galatians  to  understand  that  dur- 
ing the  fourteen  years  that  succeeded  his  conversion,  he 
had  been  in  Jerusalem  only  twice.  He  was  concerned  to 
show  that  he  had  received  his  Gospel  from  God,  and  not 
from  man ;  and  for  that  purpose  he  enumerated  the  occa- 
sions on  which  he  had  visited  Jerusalem,  and  on  which, 
consequently,  it  could  be  supposed  by  any  one  that  he  had 
received  instruction  from  the  older  apostles,  and  he  was 
careful  to  describe  what  took  place  on  those  occasions,  in 
order  to  prove  that  he  had  been  given  nothing  by  them. 
It  is  difficult,  therefore,  unless  we  are  ready  to  charge 
Paul  with  intentionally  deceiving  the  Galatians,  to  sup- 
pose that  he  actually  made  another  journey  to  Jerusalem 

i  Acts  xi.  29  sq.,  xii.  25.  That  there  was  a  famine  in  Judea  during  the 
reign  of  Claudius  is  recorded  both  by  Josephus  (Ant.  xx.  2,  5;  5,  2)  and  Oro- 
sius  (vii.  6),  and  their  accounts  point  to  the  year  45  as  the  probable  date  (cf. 
Ramsay:  St.  Paul, the  Traveller  and  Roman  Citizen,  p.  68).  The  collocation, 
in  Luke's  account,  of  the  famine  and  the  death  of  Herod  which  took  place 
in  44,  is  no  proof  that  the  two  events  occurred  at  the  same  time. 


THE   WORK   OF  PAUL  171 

in  the  interval  between  the  two  which -he  mentions.  And 
yet  it  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  a  contribution  was  act- 
ually sent  by  the  Christians  of  Antioch  to  their  brethren 
at  Jerusalem,  and  it  is  difficult  to  account  for  the  report 
that  Paul  was  one  of  the  messengers  that  carried  it,  if  he 
really  had  nothing  to  do  with  it.  It  has  been  supposed  by 
some 1  that  Paul  was  commissioned  to  go  to  Jerusalem 
with  Barnabas  on  the  occasion  in  question,  and  that  he 
may  have  started  thither,  but,  for  some  unexplained  reason, 
failed  to  reach  the  city ;  while  Luke,  finding  in  his  sources 
the  record  of  the  appointment,  drew  the  natural  but  un- 
warranted conclusion  that  both  Paul  and  Barnabas  ful- 
filled the  mission  entrusted  to  them.2  This,  however,  is 
at  best  a  lame  explanation.  A  much  simpler  solution  of 
the  difficulty  seems  to  be  that  Acts  xi.  and  xv.  both  refer 
to  the  same  event,  and  that  we  are  consequently  dealing 
here  with  the  second  of  the  two  visits  mentioned  by  Paul 
in  his  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.  It  is  entirely  conceivable 
that  Luke  found  two  independent  accounts  of  the  same 
journey  in  his  sources ;  and  as  the  occasion  was  given 
differently  in  the  two  cases,  he  supposed  them  to  refer  to 
separate  events,  and  inserted  them  at  what  seemed  to  him 
the  proper  points  in  his  narrative.  It  is  true  that  it  ap- 
pears at  first  sight  difficult  to  assume  that  the  two  accounts 
refer  to  the  same  visit,  for  the  setting  is  entirely  different 
in  the  two  cases ;  but  Gal.  ii.  10  seems  to  imply  that  a 
double  purpose  was  fulfilled  by  the  journey  described  in 
that  chapter,  and  that  Paul  was  the  bearer  of  alms  as  well 
as  the  defender  of  Gentile  Christianity.3  If  this  be  the 
case,  the  difficulty  disappears.  One  writer  might  well  be 
interested  to  record  only  the  generous  act  of  the  Anti- 
ochian  church,4  while  another  might  see  in  the  settlement 

1  For  instance,  by  Neander,  Meyer,  and  Lightfoot.  2  Acts  xii.  25. 

3  Gal.  ii.  10  reads:  "  Only  they  would  that  we  should  remember  the  poor; 
which  very  thing  I  was  also  zealous  to  do"  (o   KCU  Iff IT ov Sacra  avrb  TOVTO 
iroiTjo-ai) .    These  words  can  hardly  refer  to  the  great  collection  which  Paul 
spent  some  years  in  gathering  and  which  he  took  up  to  Jerusalem  the  last 
time  he  visited  (he  city,  for  he  had  not  begun  to  make  that  collection  at  the 
time  he  wrote  to  the  Galatians  (see  below,  p.  22(5). 

4  It  is  to  be  noticed  that  only  the  occasion  of  the  journey  is  mentioned  in 
Acts  xi.,  while  nothing  is  said  of  the  events  that  took  place  in  Jerusalem. 


172  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE 

of  the  legitimacy  of  Gentile  Christianity  the  only  mattel 
worthy  of  mention.  That  Luke  should  then  suppose  the 
two  accounts  to  refer  to  different  events  was  but  natural; 
and  it  was  also  natural,  if  he  was  aware,  as  he  probably 
was,  that  the  council  of  Jerusalem  occurred  after  Paul's 
missionary  tour  in  Galatia,  that  he  should  put  the  other 
journey  to  Jerusalem  back  into  an  earlier  period,  and  con- 
nect it  with  the  time  of  the  apostle's  previous  sojourn  in 
Antioch ;  for  it  could  hardly  be  thought  that  Paul  and 
Barnabas  visited  the  Mother  Church  twice  within  a  few 
months.1 

4.  THE  EVANGELIZATION  OF  GALATIA 

With  the  thirteenth  chapter  of  Acts  begins,  as  has  been 
generally  recognized,  the  second  part  of  the  book.  It  is 
devoted  almost  exclusively  to  the  missionary  labors  and 
personal  fortunes  of  Paul,  and  constitutes  practically  a  com- 
plete whole  in  itself.  And  yet  this  section  of  the  work, 
like  the  first  twelve  chapters,  is  based  largely  upon  older 
sources  of  varying  worth.  There  are  a  number  of  passages 
which  purport  to  be  and  doubtless  are  from  the  pen  of  an 
eyewitness,  while  other  portions  of  the  narrative  make  no 
such  claim.  There  can  be  no  doubt,  however,  that  through- 
out a  large  part  of  this  half  of  his  work,  the  author  was  in 
possession  of  much  fuller  and  more  trustworthy  documents 

i  A  confirmation  of  the  conclusion  that  Acts  xi.  and  xv.  refer  to  the  same 
event,  is  found  in  the  chronology  of  Paul's  life.  The  date  which  I  assume  for 
Ms  death  (see  below,  p.  419)  makes  it  impossible  to  assign  the  conference, 
referred  to  in  Gal.  ii.  and  Acts  xv.,  to  a  time  much  later  than  46;  but  the 
famine  recorded  in  Acts  xi.  occurred  probably  in  that  or  the  previous  year, 
so  that  the  coincidence  in  time  is  striking. 

Ramsay  also  identifies  the  visits  to  Jerusalem  mentioned  in  Acts  xi.  and 
Gal.  ii.  (St.  Paul,  the  Traveller  and  the  Roman  Citizen,  p.  48  sq.),  but  he 
separates  Acts  xi.  and  xv.,  and  regards  the  latter  chapter  as  referring  to  still 
another  and  later  visit.  This,  however,  will  not  do ;  for  the  discussion  recorded 
in  Acts  xv.  can  have  taken  place  only  on  the  occasion  which  Paul  describes  in 
Gal.  ii.  1'sq.  At  any  later  time  it  is  inconceivable ;  and  least  of  all  can  it 
have  occurred,  as  Ramsay  supposes,  after  the  Antiochian  trouble  described 
in  Gal.  ii.  11  sq.  (see  below,  p.  202  sq.).  Moreover,  it  is  impossible  to  see, 
as  Ramsay  does,  in  Paul's  brief  reference  to  the  collection  for  the  poor  in 
Gal.  ii.  10,  a  statement  of  his  chief  object  in  visiting  Jerusalem.  His  chief 
object,  as  his  entire  account  shows,  was  to  secure  the  recognition  of  Gentile 
Christianity.  The  carrying  of  the  alms  with  which  he  was  entrusted  was  to 
him  at  least  a  minor  matter. 


THE   WORK    OF   PAUL  173 

than  for  the  period  covered  by  the  first  twelve  chapters. 
There  is  also  a  homogeneity  about  the  last  sixteen  chapters 
which  is  largely  wanting  in  the  first  twelve.  Evidently 
the  sources  from  which  the  author  drew  his  knowledge  of 
Paul's  great  missionary  tours,  and  of  the  later  years  of  his 
life,  were  less  scattered  and  fragmentary  than  those  from 
which  he  derived  his  information  touching  the  fortunes  of 
the  early  church  of  Jerusalem,  and  required  far  less  expan- 
sion and  adjustment.  It  may  be  noticed,  for  instance,  that 
the  early  chapters  of  the  book  are  almost  wholly  wanting 
in  chronological  data  of  any  kind,  while  in  many  of  the 
later  chapters  the  chronology  is  fairly  clear  and  definite. 

In  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  chapters  is  given  an 
account  of  what  is  commonly  called  Paul's  First  Mission- 
ary Journey.  The  title  is  convenient,  though  it  is  a  little 
unfortunate,  for  it  conveys  the  impression  that  Paul's  mis- 
sionary labors  began  at  this  time,  when  in  point  of  fact  he 
had  without  doubt  already  been  engaged  for  some  years  in 
work  of  a  genuinely  missionary  character.  But  of  those 
years  we  know  almost  nothing,  while  from  this  point  on 
we  have  a  definite  and  ostensibly  consecutive  account  of 
Paul's  career  until  his  arrival  at  Rome  as  a  prisoner  in 
the  year  56.  The  journey  was  undertaken,  according  to 
Acts  xiii.  1  sq.,  in  conformity  with  a  command  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  who  directed  certain  prophets  and  teachers  of  the 
Antiochian  church  to  set  apart  two  of  their  own  number, 
Barnabas  and  Saul,  and  send  them  forth  upon  a  missionary 
tour.1  Leaving  Antioch,  the  two  men,  in  company  with 

1  Barnabas  and  Saul  are  referred  to  in  Acts  xiii.  1,  as  if  they  had  not  been 
previously  mentioned  by  the  author.  It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  a  new 
document  begins  at  this  point.  There  can  be  little  doubt,  in  fact,  in  view  of 
the  accuracy  of  many  of  the  details  recorded  in  chaps,  xiii.  and  xiv.,  that  the 
author  had  at  his  command  a  written  source  covering  the  journey  there  de- 
scribed. Most  recent  writers  upon  the  sources  of  the  Acts  suppose  that  Luke 
drew  in  those  chapters  upon  a  larger  source  which  he  used  extensively  in 
other  parts  of  his  work,  and  some  identify  it  with  the  document  containing 
the  "  we  "  passages  (see  p.  238,  below).  But  I  am  unable  to  find  any  signs  of 
resemblance  between  these  chapters  and  the  sections  in  which  the  pronoun 
"we"  occurs,  and  it  may  fairly  be  doubted  whether  the  source  from  which 
the  author  drew  his  account  of  Paul's  First  Missionary  Journey  was  used  by 
him  anywhere  else.  However  that  may  be,  it  is  evident  that  Luke  treated 
the  document  underlying  these  two  chapters  with  a  free  hand  (see  below, 
p.  186  sq.) . 


174  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

John  .Mark,  the  cousin  or  nephew  of  Barnabas,  went  down 
to  the  seaport  Seleucia  and  took  ship  thence  for  Cyprus, 
Barnabas'  ancestral  home.  Their  work  in  Cyprus  is  inter- 
esting chiefly  because  it  was  here  that  Paul  for  the  first 
time,  so  far  as  we  know,  came  into  direct  contact  on  the 
one  hand  with  a  striking  and  characteristic  form  of  the 
superstition  of  the  age  in  the  person  of  the  sorcerer  Bar- 
Jesus,  and  on  the  other  hand  with  the  Roman  government 
in  the  person  of  Sergius  Paulus,  the  proconsul  of  Cyprus. 

Bar-Jesus  was  a  representative  of  a  class  of  men,  very 
numerous  in  that  day,  who  possessed  a  familiarity  with  the 
forces  of  nature  which  was  not  shared  by  their  fellows, 
and  which  was  commonly  regarded  as  supernatural  in  its 
origin.  They  were  widely  looked  upon  as  endowed  with 
superhuman  power  and  wisdom,  arid  were  able  to  wield  a 
tremendous  influence  over  the  minds  of  their  fellows,  an 
influence  which  they  turned  often  to  their  own  private 
advantage.  They  were  to  be  found  in  all  parts  of  the 
world,  and  they  knew  not  only  how  to  impress  and  astonish 
the  common  people,  but  also  how  to  ingratiate  themselves 
with  the  rich  and  the  great.  That  there  should  have  been 
one  of  them  in  the  retinue  of  the  proconsul  is  not  at  all 
surprising,  and  it  is  still  less  surprising  that  he  should  have 
been  hostile  to  Paul  and  Barnabas,  who  represented  another 
system  and  whose  preaching  might  well  seem  to  threaten 
his  influence  and  credit  with  his  patron.  Paul  and  other 
early  Christian  missionaries  must  have  come  into  frequent 
contact  with  such  men,  and  the  incident  related  here  may 
be  regarded  as  a  typical  one.  It  was  natural  that  Luke, 
finding  in  his  sources,  as  he  probably  did,  a  reference  to 
Paul's  meeting  with  such  a  man,  should  picture  the  scene 
as  an  exhibition  of  the  superior  power  of  Christianity  in 
the  very  field  in  which  Bar-Jesus  and  his  kind  were  most 
skilful.  He  could  hardly  conceive  of  Paul  as  coming  into 
contact  with  such  a  man  and  not  giving  convincing  evidence 
of  his  mightier  control  over  the  forces  of  nature,  and  it  may 
have  been  a  denunciation  by  Paul  of  the  spiritual  blindness 
of  the  Magian  that  led  him  to  suppose  that  the  apostle 
inflicted  physical  blindness  upon  him,  as  recorded  in  vs.  11. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  175 

But  the  journey  of  Paul  and  Barnabas  through  Cyprus 
is  significant  not  simply  because  of  their  meeting  with  Bar- 
Jesus,  but  also  and  chiefly  because  of  their  interview  with 
the  proconsul  Sergius  Paulus.1  He  seems  to  have  been 
interested  by  the  reports  that  reached  him  of  the  two  trav- 
ellers, whose  preaching  was  very  likely  creating  some  stir 
in  Paphos,  and  he  consequently  sent  for  them  that  he  might 
hear  them  for  himself.  Luke  gives  us  no  account  of  their 
preaching  before  him,  his  entire  attention  being  taken  up 
with  the  case  of  the  sorcerer,  but  he  closes  the  incident 
with  the  remark  that  the  proconsul  believed ; 2  and  whether 
it  is  to  be  supposed  that  he  was  really  converted  to  the 
Christian  faith  and  became  a  disciple,  as  Luke's  words 
imply,  or  only  that  he  was  strongly  and  favorably  im- 
pressed by  what  he  had  seen  and  heard,  in  any  case  the 
interview  must  have  meant  a  great  deal  to  Paul.  It  is  not 
impossible  that  the  impression  which  he  made  upon  the 
governor  led  him  to  turn  his  thoughts  more  earnestly  than 
heretofore  upon  the  Roman  Empire  as  the  field  of  his 
labors,  and  to  cherish  a  more  confident  belief  in  the  possi- 
bility of  bringing  the  Roman  world  to  Christ.  At  any  rate, 
even  if  the  event  was  not  actually  the  occasion  of  an  en- 
largement of  his  horizon  and  expansion  of  his  plans,  it  was 
at  least  typical,  for  throughout  his  subsequent  career  it  was 
the  Roman  Empire  that  he  was  thinking  of  and  aiming  to 
win  for  Christ.  He  was  proud  of  his  Roman  citizenship 
and  made  a  great  deal  of  it ;  he  always  used  his  Roman 
name  Paul ;  his  churches  he  designated  by  the  names  of  the 
Roman  provinces  in  which  they  were  situated,  the  churches 
of  Galatia,  of  Asia,  of  Macedonia,  of  Achaia ;  his  thoughts 
turned  continually  toward  Rome,  and  in  all  his  journeys  his 
gaze  was  fixed  upon  the  capital  which  he  longed  to  see  and 

1  A  Sergius  Paulus  is  known  to  us  from  the  writings  of  Pliny,  who  is  very 
likely  to  be  identified  with  the  proconsul  mentioned  by  Luke,  and  the  name  of 
a  proconsul  Paulus  is  found  in  Cypriote  inscriptions,  who  is  also  possibly  the 
same  man.    See  Lightfoot  in  the  Contemporary  Review,  May,  1878,  p.  290  sq. 
For  an  interesting  and  suggestive  account  of  Paul's  visit  to  Cyprus  see  Ramsay  : 
St.  Paul,  the  Traveller  and  Roman  Citizen,  p.  70  sq. 

2  Acts  xiii.  12.    It  is  interesting  to  notice  that  Luke  ascribes  the  conversion 
of  the  proconsul  rather  to  the  miracle  performed  by  Paul  in  smiting  the  Magian 
with  blindness  than  to  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  by  him. 


176  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

where  he  longed  to  preach.1  The  interview  with  Sergius 
Paulus  therefore  is  interesting  and  suggestive  even  though 
it  may  not  have  marked  an  epoch  in  Paul's  own  career. 
The  author  of  the  Acts,  with  the  instinct  of  a  true  historian, 
evidently  felt  its  significance ;  for  it  is  in  connection  with  it 
that  he  first  employs  Saul's  Roman  name  Paul,2  the  name 
by  which  the  apostle  is  thenceforth  uniformly  called  in  the 
Acts,3  and  which  he  always  uses  in  his  epistles.  Luke  does 
not  mean  to  imply,  nor  is  it  necessary  to  suppose,  that  Paul 
himself  began  to  use  the  new  name  just  at  this  time ;  but 
as  the  great  apostle  who  had  entered  upon  his  career  as  a 
preacher  of  the  Gospel  to  the  Roman  world,  Luke  proposed 
to  treat  him  thenceforth  not  as  a  Jew,  but  as  a  Roman. 
The  name  itself,  Paul  probably  bore  from  the  beginning  in 
addition  to  his  Hebrew  name  Saul ;  for  such  double  names 
were  not  at  all  uncommon  in  the  provinces,  and  the  son 
of  a  Roman  citizen  could  hardly  have  failed  to  possess  a 
Roman  name.  It  may  well  be  that  he  began  to  use  the 
latter  to  the  exclusion  of  his  Hebrew  name  when  he  defi- 
nitely conceived  the  purpose  of  evangelizing  the  Roman 
world. 

Leaving  Cyprus  after  a  stay  of  unknown  duration,  Paul 
and  his  companions  sailed  for  Perga,  an  important  commer- 
cial town  of  Pamphylia,  situated  upon  the  River  Oestrus 
not  far  from  its  mouth.  It  was  at  this  point  that  John 
Mark  left  them  and  returned  to  Jerusalem.4  His  with- 
drawal from  the  work,  which  seems  to  have  displeased 
Paul  greatly,5  suggests  that  a  change  had  been  made  in 
the  original  plans  of  the  party,  and  that  Paul  and  Barna- 
bas had  decided  to  undertake  a  journey  which  Mark  had 
not  anticipated,  and  which  involved  a  longer  absence  from 
home  or  greater  hardships  than  he  was  willing  to  undergo. 
It  may  be  that  the  determination  was  now  formed  to  press 
north  and  westward  across  Asia  Minor,  in  order  to  carry 
the  Gospel  to  the  provinces  of  Asia  and  Bithynia  or 
even  over  into  Europe,  as  Paul  did  at  a  later  time.  At 

1  Rom.  i.  15,  xv.  22  sq.  2  Acts  xiii.  9. 

8  Except  in  the  discourses  of  Paul  recorded  in  Acts  xxii.  and  xxvi. 

4  Acts  xiii.  13.  6  cf .  Acts  xv.  38. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  177 

any  rate,  the  travellers  left  Perga  apparently  after  only 
a  short  stay  there,  and  crossing  the  Taurus  Mountains 
went  on  to  Antioch,  a  prominent  city  of  Phrygia  and  the 
political  centre  of  the  southern  half  of  the  Roman  prov- 
ince of  Galatia.1  If  the  plan  had  been  formed  of  going 
on  from  Antioch  westward  or  northward  into  Asia  or 
Bithynia,  it  was  for  some  reason  abandoned  at  this  point, 
and  the  apostles  turned  instead  southeastward  to  Iconium, 
Lystra,  and  Derbe,  all  of  them  cities  lying  within  the  bor- 
ders of  the  province  of  Galatia.2  On  the  supposition  that 
the  churches  of  the  Galatian  cities  visited  at  this  time  are 
the  ones  addressed  by  Paul  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Gala- 
tians,  Ramsay 3  suggests  that  the  trip  from  Perga  over  the 
mountains  to  Antioch  was  undertaken  because  Paul  was 
smitten  with  malarial  fever  while  in  the  former  city,  and 
was  obliged  to  seek  the  highlands  of  the  interior  in  order 
to  throw  off  the  attack,  and  that  thus  he  was  led  by  "  an 
infirmity  of  the  flesh"  to  preach  for  the  first  time  to  the 
Galatians.4  The  suggestion  is  a  plausible  one,  but  it  seems 
much  more  likely  that  the  illness  of  which  Paul  speaks 
in  his  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  overtook  him  at  Antioch 
rather  than  at  Perga.5  For  if  he  was  taken  ill  at  Perga, 
it  would  be  more  natural  for  him  to  return  to  his  home 

1  Upon  the  name  Pisidian  Antioch,  by  which  the  city  was  commonly  known, 
see  Ramsay :  Church  in  the  Roman  Empire,  p.  25  sq. 

2  See  Ramsay :  Historical  Geography  of  Asia  Minor,  pp.  26,  30,  450,  and 
The  Church  in  the  Roman  Empire,  p.  13  sq. ;  also  Weizsacker,  I.e.  S.  228  sq. 
(Eng.  Trans.,  I.  p.  270  sq.),  and  Rendall  in  the  Expositor,  Vol.  IX.,  1894, 
p.  254  sq.    Schiirer  in  the  Theologische  Liter  aturzeitung,  1892,  Sp.  468  (cf. 
also  1893,  Sp.  410),  and  in  the  Jahrbiicher  fur  Protestantische  Theologie,  1892, 
S.  471,  denies  that  the  province  which  included  Galatia,  Pisidia,  and  Lycaonia, 
bore  the  official  name  Galatia,  and  that  the  inhabitants  of  Pisidia  and  Lycao- 
nia could  ever  have  been  called  Galatians  ;  but  Ramsay  has  shown  him  to  be  in 
error. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Roman  province  Galatia  did  embrace  at  the 
time  with  which  we  are  dealing,  not  only  the  old  kingdom  of  Galatia,  but 
also  Pisidia,  Lycaonia,  and  a  part  of  Phrygia,  and  that  the  inhabitants  of 
the  latter  countries  might  properly  have  been  called  Galatians  by  Paul. 

8  Church  in  the  Roman  Empire,  p.  61  sq. 

4  Gal.  iv.  13. 

5  So  also  Weizsacker,  S.  240.    If  his  "  infirmity  of  the  flesh  "  was  an  attack 
of  malarial  fever,  as  is  very  likely,  Paul  may  have  contracted  the  disease  in 
the  lowlands  of  Pamphylia,  but  it  may  not  have  made  its  appearance  until  he 
reached  Antioch.  It  is  frequently  only  after  a  person  leaves  a  malarial  region 
that  he  feels  the  consequences  of  residence  in  it. 


178  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

or  to  Cyprus,  where  both  he  and  Barnabas  were  already 
acquainted,  than  to  go  into  an  entirely  unfamiliar  country, 
which  could  be  reached  only  by  eight  days  of  hard  travel.1 
And  it  could  hardly  be  said  in  Acts  xv.  38,  in  speaking 
of  Mark's  withdrawal,  that  he  refused  to  go  "  on  to  the 
work  "  with  Paul  and  Barnabas  if  the  trip  to  Antioch  was 
undertaken  merely  for  the  sake  of  Paul's  recovery.  On 
the  other  hand,  if  while  the  travellers  were  pressing  north 
or  westward,  not  intending  to  stop  to  preach  in  Antioch, 
Paul  was  stricken  down  and  obliged  to  remain  there  for 
some  time,  it  would  be  natural  for  him  to  tell  his  mes- 
sage, when  he  found  himself  able  to  do  so,  to  those  among 
whom  he  was  thus  providentially  thrown.  When  he  was 
obliged  to  leave  Antioch,  as  recorded  in  Acts  xiii.  50,  it 
may  be  that  he  turned  southeastward  instead  of  westward 
or  northward,  because  he  had  not  yet  fully  recovered  his 
strength,  and  thought  it  best  to  return  home  rather  than 
to  undertake  at  this  time  the  longer  journey  he  had 
planned.  If  this  were  so,  it  would  be  literally  true  that 
he  had  preached  not  to  the  Antiochians  alone,  but  to  all 
the  Galatians,  "  because  of  an  infirmity  of  the  flesh,"  and 
the  words  in  which  he  refers  to  his  malady  and  to  the 
kind  reception  they  had  given  him  2  would  apply  to  all 
of  them  and  not  simply  to  the  Christians  of  a  single 
city. 

It  has  been  assumed  in  what  has  just  been  said  that  the 
Galatian  Christians,  whom  Paul  addressed  in  his  epistle, 
are  to  be  found  in  the  cities  of  Antioch,  Iconium,  Lystra, 
and  Derbe,  which  he  visited  at  this  time,  according  to  the 
account  of  the  Book  of  Acts.  This  opinion  has  been  main- 
tained by  some  eminent  scholars,3  but  it  is  by  no  means  the 
prevailing  view.  The  great  majority  of  writers  upon  the 
New  Testament  hold  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  was 
addressed  to  Christians  living  in  the  Galatian  country,  a  dis- 
trict lying  to  the  north  and  east  of  Lycaonia  and  Phrygia, 
and  constituting  only  a  part  of  the  great  Roman  province  of 

1  See  Ramsay,  I.e.  p.  65.  2  Qal.  iv.  13-15. 

8  Among  others  by  Kenan,  Hausrath,  Weizsacker,  Pfleiderer,  and  most 
recently  by  Ramsay. 


THE  WORK   OF   PAUL  179 

Galatia.1  This  district,  whose  chief  cities  were  Ancyra,  Ta- 
vium,  and  Pessinus,  had  been  inhabited  for  some  centuries 
by  a  Keltic  people,  and  had  constituted  before  its  incorpora- 
tion in  the  Roman  Empire  the  Kingdom  of  Galatia.  It  is 
contended  by  the  writers  who  maintain  the  so-called  "North- 
Galatian  "  theory,  that  only  the  inhabitants  of  this  country- 
could  have  been  called  Galatians  by  Paul.  But  it  was  his 
uniform  custom,  in  speaking  of  his  churches,  to  use  the 
names  of  the  Roman  provinces  and  not  of  the  geographical 
districts  in  which  they  were  situated.  Thus  he  speaks  of 
the  churches  of  Asia,  of  Macedonia,  and  of  Achaia,  and  it 
is  fair  to  assume  that  he  uses  the  term  "  Galatia  "  in  the  same 
official  sense.  The  fact  that  the  author  of  the  Acts  fre- 
quently uses  geographical  terms,  such  as  Mysia,  Phrygia, 
Pisidia,  Lycaonia,  has  no  bearing  upon  the  matter,  for  it  is 
Paul's  usage  and  not  the  usage  of  the  Book  of  Acts  that 
we  are  seeking;  and  it  should  be  observed  that  in  such  a 
narrative  of  travel  as  is  given  in  Acts,  we  might  expect  to 
find  the  various  districts  of  a  province  through  which  the 
apostles  passed,  referred  to  by  their  common  geographical 
or  national  designations.  As  Ramsay  has  clearly  shown,  if 
Paul  wished  to  address  the  Christians  of  Antioch,  Iconium, 
Lystra,  and  Derbe  in  a  single  circular  letter,  the  only  gen- 
eral term  which  he  could  employ  to  designate  them  all,  and 
at  the  same  time  the  most  honorable  term,  was  "  Galatians  " 
or  "  Men  of  the  province  of  Galatia." 

There  are,  moreover,  a  number  of  excellent  reasons  for 
assuming  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  was  actually  in- 
tended for  the  Christians  of  Antioch  and  the  other  cities 
just  referred  to.  It  is  very  difficult,  for  instance,  to  under- 
stand how  Paul  can  have  preached  the  Gospel  in  North 
Galatia  "because  of  an  infirmity  of  the  flesh."2  So  far  as 
we  know,  he  never  visited  any  country  so  situated  that  his 

1  Among  the  many  that  hold  this  view  may  be  mentioned  Lightfoot  (Com- 
mentary on  Galatians),  Wendt  (Meyer's  Commentary  on  the  Acts,  7th  edi- 
tion), Lipsius   (Commentary  on  Galatians,  in  the  Hand-Kommentar  zum 
Neuen  Testament),  Schiirer  (in  the  articles  already  referred  to),  and  Weiss 
and  Jiilicher  in  their  Introductions  to  the  New  Testament.     For  an  especially 
thorough  presentation  and  defence  of  the  view,  see  Holsten's  Evangelium  des 
Paulus,  I.  S.  35  sq, 

2  Gal.  iv.  13. 


180  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

journey  thither  took  him  through  North  Galatia,  and  it  is 
inconceivable  that  illness  can  have  led  him  to  go  so  far 
out  of  his  way,  as  he  must  have  gone,  if  he  preached  in 
Ancyra  or  Tavium  or  other  prominent  North  Galatian 
cities.  If  he  preached  there  at  all,  it  would  seem  that  he 
must  have  gone  thither  for  that  express  purpose ;  but  his 
own  words  in  Gal.  iv.  13  preclude  such  a  supposition.  It 
is  very  difficult  also  to  discover  a  time  when  Paul  can 
have  done  evangelistic  work  in  North  Galatia.  It  is  clear 
from  Gal.  iv.  13  sq.,  that  he  had  visited  the  Galatians  twice 
before  he  wrote  them.  The  former  of  these  visits  the  advo- 
cates of  the  North  Galatian  theory  commonly  find  referred 
to  in  Acts  xvi.  6,  the  latter  in  Acts  xviii.  23,  on  the  assump- 
tion that  the  word  "  Galatia  "  in  these  two  cases  can  be  un- 
derstood only  in  a  geographical  sense.  But  the  assumption 
is  entirely  erroneous; 1  and  even  if  it  were  granted,  it  would 
certainly  be  an  extremely  hazardous  proceeding  to  insert  in 
Acts  xvi.  6,  the  extended  and  fruitful  evangelistic  labors 
which  Paul's  epistle  shows  that  he  did  among  the  Gala- 
tians. It  should  be  remarked  still  farther  that  the  use  of 
vpas  in  Gal.  ii.  5,  though  it  may  not  conclusively  prove, 
does  at  least  imply  that  the  Galatians  had  been  evangelized 
before  the  conference  of  Jerusalem  which  Paul  describes 
in  his  epistle  to  them.  But  there  is  nowhere  in  our 
sources  a  hint  that  he  had  visited  North  Galatia  before 
that  time.  Again  the  reference  to  Barnabas  in  Gal.  ii.  13, 
is  such  as  to  suggest  that  the  Galatians  must  have  had 
reason  to  be  particularly  interested  in  him.  But  on  the 
second  and  third  missionary  journeys,  when  it  is  assumed 
by  the  defenders  of  the  theory  in  question  that  Paul  vis- 
ited the  country,  Barnabas  was  not  one  of  the  company, 
and  the  North  Galatians,  therefore,  were  not  personally 
acquainted  with  him,  as  the  Christians  of  Antioch,  Iconium, 
and  the  other  South  Galatian  cities  were.  It  is  also  a  very 
significant  fact  that  whereas,  according  to  1  Cor.  xvi.  1  sq., 
Galatia  had  a  part  in  the  great  collection  which  Paul  made 
for  the  saints  of  the  Mother  Church,  no  disciple  from  North 
Galatia  is  mentioned  as  accompanying  him  when  he  carried 
i  Cf.  Ramsay,  I.e.  p.  77  sq. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  181 

it  to  Jerusalem,  while  Macedonia,  Asia,  and  South  Galatia 
were  all  well  represented.1  Finally,  it  is  upon  the  face  of 
it  extremely  improbable  that  the  conversion  of  those  disci- 
ples to  whom  Paul  was  so  profoundly  attached,  and  to 
whom  he  wrote  one  of  his  most  important  epistles,  should 
have  been  entirely  ignored  by  the  author  of  the  Book  of 
Acts,  and  that  he  would  have  omitted  all  mention  of 
Paul's  labors  among  them,  and  of  the  churches  which  he 
founded,  when  he  related  with  such  fulness  the  work  in 
other  countries  and  especially  in  the  South  Galatian  cities, 
to  which,  on  the  theory  that  we  are  combating,  Paul  makes 
no  reference  in  any  of  his  letters.2  In  view  of  all  these 
considerations,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that,  in  his  Epistle 
to  the  Galatians,  Paul  was  addressing  Christians  who  dwelt 
in  the  southern  part  of  the  great  province  of  Galatia,  in 
the  cities,  for  instance,  of  Antioch,  Iconium,  Lystra,  and 
Derbe. 

Weizsacker,  who  holds  the  same  opinion,  contends  that 
Paul  cannot  have  preached  in  Galatia  before  the  Council 
of  Jerusalem,  and  he  therefore  assumes  that  the  account  of 
the  apostle's  labors  contained  in  Acts.  xiii.  and  xiv.  has 
been  inserted  in  the  wrong  place.  The  only  ground  for 
this  assumption  is  the  omission  of  a  reference  to  Galatia  in 
Gal.  i.  21,  where  Paul  says  that  after  his  first  visit  to  Jeru- 
salem he  went  into  the  regions  of  Syria  and  Cilicia.  It 
is  true  that  if  he  preached  in  Cyprus,  and  in  Antioch, 
Iconium,  Lystra,  and  Derbe,  before  the  council,  his  silence 
is  somewhat  surprising,  but  it  is  not  absolutely  conclusive; 
for  he  does  not  say  that  he  remained  in  Syria  and  Cilicia 
during  the  entire  period  that  elapsed  between  his  first  and 
second  visits  to  Jerusalem,  and  his  argument  did  not  re- 
quire that  he  should  give  an  account  of  himself  during  all 
that  time,  but  only  that  he  should  omit  no  occasion  on 
which  he  came  into  contact  with  the  Mother  Church,  or 
with  the  older  apostles,  and  on  which,  therefore,  he  might 
be  supposed  to  have  received  his  Gospel.  On  the  assump- 

1  Acts  xx.  4. 

2  Antioch,  Iconium,  and  Lystra  are  mentioned  in  2  Tim.  iii.  11,  but  the 
passage  is  of  doubtful  authenticity. 


182  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

tion  that  he  was  addressing  in  his  epistle  the  very  churches 
which  he  had  founded  during  that  period,  there  was  still 
less  reason  for  him  to  mention  a  fact  so  well  known  to  his 
readers.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  difficult  to  suppose  that 
Paul  can  have  visited  Galatia  after  the  important  confer- 
ence at  Jerusalem,  and  not  have  told  his  Gentile  converts 
of  the  significant  results  accomplished  at  that  time.  But 
his  description  of  the  conference  in  the  second  chapter  of 
his  epistle  implies  that  he  is  there  giving  them  his  first 
account  of  it.  It  should  be  observed  also  that  Barnabas 
was  Paul's  companion  during  the  missionary  tour  recorded 
in  Acts  xiii.  and  xiv.  But  it  is  exceedingly  difficult  to 
suppose  that  the  two  men  can  have  made  such  a  journey 
together  after  the  occurrence  related  in  Gal.  ii.  13,  an 
occurrence  which  apparently  took  place  almost  imme- 
diately after  the  council.1  If  any  reliance,  therefore,  is 
to  be  placed  upon  the  account  contained  in  Acts  xiii.  and 
xiv.,  it  seems  necessary  to  conclude  that  the  author  is 
correct  in  putting  the  journey  in  question  before  and  not 
after  the  Council  of  Jerusalem,  described  in  the  fifteenth 
chapter. 

According  to  Acts  xiii.  14,  Paul  and  Barnabas  began 
their  evangelistic  work  in  Antioch  in  the  synagogue, 
directing  their  efforts  primarily  to  the  conversion  of  the 
Jews,  and  turning  from  them  to  the  Gentiles  only  when 
the  former  had  rejected  their  message  and  refused  to  be- 
lieve.2 The  accuracy  of  this  report  has  been  strenuously 
denied  by  many  scholars,  on  the  ground  that  such  conduct 
on  Paul's  part  is  inconsistent  with  his  mission  as  the  apostle 
to  the  Gentiles.  But  the  objection  is  not  well  taken  ;  for, 
as  has  already  been  seen,  Paul's  conception  of  the  Gospel, 
while  it  involved  the  legitimacy  of  Gentile  Christianity, 
did  not  compel  him  to  preach  to  the  Gentiles  rather  than 

1  The  Book  of  Acts  is  doubtless  correct  in  recording  that  Paul  and  Barnabas 
separated  soon  after  the  council  and  went  each  his  own  way  (xv.  35  sq.).    But 
the  reason  which  it  gives  is  hardly  adequate  to  account  for  their  separation. 
It  may  safely  be  assumed  that  the  real  ground  lay  in  the  unfortunate  incident 
to  which  Paul  refers  in  Gal.  ii.  13. 

2  Acts  xiii.  46.    Paul  and  Barnabas  are  also  reported  to  have  preached  in 
the  synagogues  of  Cyprus  (Acts  xiii.  5). 


THE   WOKK  OF  PAUL  183 

to  the  Jews,  nor  is  there  any  sign  that  during  the  early 
years  of  his  Christian  life  he  discriminated  against  his  own 
countrymen  and  confined  his  attention  exclusively  or  even 
chiefly  to  the  heathen.  The  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  itself, 
indicates  that  though  the  Gentiles  were  largely  in  the 
majority  in  the  churches  addressed,1  there  were  at  least 
some  Jewish  disciples  among  them,2  while  in  Antioch  in 
Syria,  where  Paul  labored  for  so  long  a  time,  there  was 
evidently  a  large  and  influential  Jewish  Christian  ele- 
ment.3 That  Paul  regarded  himself,  as  he  certainly  did  in 
a  peculiar  sense,  the  apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  by  no  means 
indicates  that  he  did  not  believe  it  his  duty  to  labor  also 
for  the  evangelization  of  the  Jews.  In  fact,  his  own  words, 
in  his  epistles  to  the  Romans  and  Corinthians,4  prove  be- 
yond all  shadow  of  a  doubt,  not  only  that  he  was  profoundly 
concerned  in  the  conversion  of  his  countrymen,  but  also 
that  he  had  done  what  he  could  to  bring  it  about.  Had  we 
no  record  in  the  Book  of  Acts  of  the  method  followed  by 
Paul,  a  comparison  of  all  his  own  utterances  upon  the  sub- 
ject would  compel  us  to  conclude,  in  the  first  place,  that 
he  desired  the  salvation  of  every  man,  whatever  his  race 
or  country,  but  as  a  true  patriot,  longed  most  profoundly 
for  the  conversion  of  his  own  nation ;  in  the  second  place, 
that  he  believed  himself,  if  not  in  the  beginning,  at  least 
at  the  time  he  wrote  his  epistles,  called  by  God  to  devote 
himself  especially  to  the  evangelization  of  the  Gentile 
world,  with  the  conviction  that  the  salvation  of  the 
heathen  would  redound  to  the  benefit  of  the  children  of 
Abraham  ;  in  the  third  place,  that  he  understood  this  call 
to  mean  not  that  he  was  to  forget  or  neglect  his  own  coun- 
trymen, but  that  he  was  to  improve  every  opportunity  that 
might  offer  itself  to  win  such  of  them  as  he  came  in  contact 
with  while  carrying  on  his  world- wide  mission  ;  that  he  was, 
in  fact,  to  win  every  man  he  could,  whether  Gentile  or  Jew. 
The  belief  that  he  had  been  called  to  labor  especially 
among  the  heathen  may  have  come  to  him  at  the  time  of 
his  conversion,  as  his  own  words  in  Gal.  i.  16  might  seem 

1  Gal.  iv.  8,  v.  2,  vi.  12,  13.  a  Gal.  u.  13. 

2  Gal.  iii.  28.  *  Rom.  ix.,  x.  1,  xi.  11  sq. ;  1  Cor.  ix.  20, 


184  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

to  indicate,  or  it  may  have  grown  upon  him  gradually. 
His  birth  and  residence  in  a  foreign  city,  his  consequent 
interest  in  Jewish  propagandism  among  the  heathen,  which 
must  have  been  vivid  from  an  early  day,  his  Roman  citi- 
zenship, his  profound  belief  in  the  absolute  liberty  of  the 
Gospel,  his  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  the  great  majority 
of  the  disciples  were  laboring  exclusively  for  the  conver- 
sion of  the  Jews,  his  recognition  of  the  hostility  which  his 
own  revolutionary  principles  could  not  fail  to  excite  among 
his  countrymen,  and  finally  his  own  experience  of  their  ob- 
durateness  and  inaccessibility,  must  all  have  contributed  if 
not  to  the  formation,  at  least  to  the  confirmation  of  his 
belief.  He  must  have  recognized  in  all  of  them  providen- 
tial indications  of  the  peculiar  work  to  which  he  was  called 
and  for  which  he  was  fitted,  and  his  statement  in  Gal.  i.  16 
is  abundantly  satisfied  if  we  suppose  that  it  was  as  a  result 
of  such  providential  indications  that  he  first  realized  just 
what  his  call  meant.  In  view  of  all  that  has  been  said,  the 
method  pursued  by  Paul  according  to  Acts  xiii.,  in  begin- 
ning his  evangelistic  work  in  Galatia,  must  be  pronounced 
entirely  natural.  If  it  be  granted  that  his  object  in  preach- 
ing at  all  in  Pisidian  Antioch  was  to  bring  a  knowledge  of 
the  Gospel  to  as  many  as  he  could,  and  to  win  as  many 
converts  as  possible,  and  it  would  be  difficult  to  show  that 
this  was  not  his  object,  the  most  natural  thing  for  him  to 
do  was  to  enter  the  synagogue,  and  there  improve  the  op- 
portunity which  he  knew  would  be  readily  afforded  him, 
as  an  educated  Jew,  to  proclaim  Jesus  as  the  Messiah.  By 
such  a  course  he  might  reach  not  only  Jews,  but  also  prose- 
lytes and  God-fearing  Gentiles,  who  commonly  attended 
the  services  of  the  synagogue  in  large  numbers ;  and 
with  the  converts  thus  secured  as  a  nucleus,  he  might 
push  the  work  still  further,  both  among  Jews  and  heathen. 
On  the  other  hand,  had  he  ignored  his  fellow-countrymen 
and  begun  his  work  among  the  heathen,  he  would  have  cut 
himself  off  from  any  possibility  of  influencing  the  Jews, 
whether  native  or  proselyte,  and  at  the  same  time  would 
have  failed  to  utilize  the  obvious  advantage  afforded  by 
the  already  awakened  religious  interest  of  many  Gentiles. 


THE  WORK  OK  PAUL  185 

In  other  words,  he  would  have  begun,  as  no  wise  man  would 
have  thought  of  beginning,  with  the  least  accessible  and 
least  promising  portion  of  the  community,  and  would 
have  circumscribed  permanently  and  quite  unnecessarily 
his  sphere  of  labor. 

The  account  with  which  we  are  dealing  records  that 
Paul's  preaching  in  the  Antiochian  synagogue  aroused 
much  interest,  but  that  the  Jews  in  general  finally  re- 
jected his  message  and  refused  to  believe,  and  that  he 
and  Barnabas  then  turned  to  the  Gentiles.1  This  does 
not  mean  that  it  was  in  Pisidian  Antioch  that  Paul  first 
preached  the  Gospel  to  the  Gentiles,2  —  the  Book  of  Acts 
itself  refutes  such  an  assumption, — nor  does  it  indicate 
that  at  this  time  occurred  a  permanent  change  in  Paul's 
missionary  policy ;  for  he  is  recorded  to  have  preached  in 
the  synagogue  again  upon  reaching  Iconium.3  Acts  xiii. 
46,  therefore,  does  not  mark  and  was  not  intended  by  the 
author  to  mark  the  close  of  Paul's  work  among  the  Jews, 
and  the  beginning  of  his  work  among  the  Gentiles.  It  re- 
cords a  fact  of  merely  local  significance,  and  that  not  the 
beginning  of  Paul's  effort  to  win  the  Gentile  converts  in 
Antioch,  for  he  undoubtedly  had  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews 
in  mind  when  he  preached  in  the  synagogue,  but  the  defi- 
nite abandonment  of  the  attempt  to  convert  the  Jewish 
colony  there.  And  yet,  though  the  event  must  be  recog- 
nized to  have  had  merely  a  local  significance,  every  such 
event  —  and  doubtless  it  was  not  the  first  of  the  kind  that 
Paul  had  experienced  —  must  strengthen  his  conviction 
that  his  work  lay  chiefly  among  the  Gentiles,  and  that 
his  greatest  successes  were  to  be  won  among  them.  But 
it  must  have  done  more  than  that ;  it  must  have  led  him 
to  see  that  Gentile  Christianity  was  to  overshadow  Jewish 

1  Acts  xiii.  46. 

2  It  is  possible  that  this  idea  was  in  the  mind  of  the  writer  of  the  document 
which  was  used  by  the  author  of  the  Acts  in  chaps,  xiii.  and  xiv. ;  for  in 
xiv.  27  the  strange  remark  is  made  that  Paul  and  Barnabas,  upon  their  return 
from  their  missionary  tour,  told  the  church  of  Syrian  Antioch  "how  God  had 
opened  a  door  of  faith  unto  the  Gentiles."    In  the  light  of  xi.  1,  18,  19  sq.,  it  is 
difficult  to  suppose  that  this  statement  is  to  be  attributed  to  the  author  of  the 
Acts. 

3  Acts  xiv.  1. 


186  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE 

Christianity  and  surpass  it  in  influence  and  extent,  that  in 
the  Gentile  world  the  Gospel  was  to  make  far  more  rapid 
strides  than  it  had  in  Judea,  and  thus  there  must  have  pre- 
sented itself  to  him  at  an  early  day  the  perplexing  prob- 
lem of  God's  purpose  for  his  chosen  people  with  which  he 
wrestled  years  later  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  It  was 
doubtless  such  experiences  as  this  at  Antioch  that  led  him 
to  see  in  the  conversion  of  the  heathen  not  simply  their 
own  salvation,  but  God's  providential  means  for  saving 
finally  the  whole  family  of  Israel.1 

Though  we  cannot  doubt,  as  has  been  said,  that  Paul 
and  Barnabas  preached  to  the  Jews  in  Antioch,  it  may 
fairly  be  questioned  whether  the  address  contained  in 
Acts  xiii.  actually  reproduces  with  accuracy  what  Paul 
said.  There  is  a  resemblance  in  the  early  portion  to  the 
speech  of  Stephen,  and  in  other  parts  to  the  discourses  of 
Peter,  while  the  style  is  in  the  main  undeniably  Luke's. 
Moreover,  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  Paul  can  have 
uttered  vss.  38  and  39,  at  least  in  the  form  in  which  we 
have  them.  Both  of  them  are  sufficiently  un-Pauline  to 
excite  surprise,  occurring  as  they  do  at  the  climax  of  his 
address,  when  we  should  expect  him,  if  ever,  to  give 
utterance  to  the  very  essence  of  the  Gospel  as  he  under- 
stood it.  Verse  38  contains  an  idea  of  which  there  is 
little  trace  in  his  teaching,  while  the  phrase  itself,  ac^ecrt? 
a/za/ma>z>,  which  is  employed  by  Peter  with  the  same 
significance  and  practically  in  the  same  connection  in 
both  his  Pentecostal  and  Csesarean  discourses,2  is  found 
in  none  of  Paul's  epistles,  except  once  in  Ephesians,  and 
again  in  the  parallel  passage  in  Colossians.3  On  the  other 
hand,  in  vs.  39,  where  it  is  said  that  "  every  one  that  be- 
lie veth  is  justified  from  all  things  from  which  ye  could 
not  be  justified  by  the  law  of  Moses,"  a  conception  of 
justification  is  expressed,  which,  if  not  distinctly  un- 
Pauline,  nevertheless  falls  far  below  Paul's  characteristic 
and  controlling  idea  of  justification  as  the  state  of  the 
saved  man  who  is  completely  reconciled  to  God  and 
enjoys  peace  with  him.  But  though  we  cannot  depend 

1  Rom.  xi.  11-26.  2  Acts  ii.  38,  x.  43.  «  Eph.  i.  7 ;  Col.  i.  14. 


THE  WORK   OF  PAUL  187 

implicitly  upon  the  address  in  chap.  xiii.  for  a  knowl- 
edge of  what  Paul  actually  preached  in  Galatia,  we  learn 
from  Gal.  iii.  1  sq.  that  that  preaching  embraced  at  any 
rate  the  crucifixion  of  Christ,  salvation  by  faith  and  not 
by  works,  and  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  —  all  of 
which  constituted  fundamental  elements  in  his  Gospel. 
Though  he  does  not  refer  to  the  resurrection  of  Christ  as 
a  part  of  his  original  proclamation,  he  must,  of  course, 
have  emphasized  it  from  the  very  beginning  in  Galatia,  as 
everywhere  else.  It  may  be  assumed,  in  fact,  that  what- 
ever he  may  have  said  on  any  particular  occasion,  or  how- 
ever he  may  have  addressed  the  Jews  in  their  synagogues, 
it  was  his  Gospel  of  death  with  Christ  unto  the  flesh  and 
resurrection  with  him  unto  a  new  life  in  the  Spirit  which 
he  inculcated  in  Galatia;  that  Gospel  which  he  had  worked 
out  in  his  own  experience  and  which  constituted  the  sum 
and  substance  of  his  Christianity.  He  was  true  to  his 
great  underlying  principles  even  in  his  evangelistic  work. 
He  did  not  reserve  those  principles  for  mature  and  devel- 
oped Christians,  but  began  with  them,  and  built  everything 
else  upon  them.  This  is  what  we  should  have  expected  a 
man  of  Paul's  character  to  do,  and  this  is  what  his  Epistle 
to  the  Galatians  shows  that  he  actually  did.1 

After  giving  up  their  attempt  to  convert  the  Jews  of 
Antioch,  Paul  and  Barnabas,  according  to  Acts  xiii.  48  sq., 
remained  some  time  in  the  city  preaching  the  Gospel  to 
the  Gentiles  and  meeting  with  considerable  success  in 
their  work.  But  the  Jews,  who  were  not  content  with 
merely  contradicting  the  things  spoken  by  Paul  and  re- 
jecting the  message  which  he  brought  them,  succeeded 
finally  in  arousing  the  hostility  of  the  "  devout  women  of 
honorable  estate  2  and  of  the  chief  men  of  the  city,"  and 
the  result  was  that  the  two  missionaries  were  expelled 
from  the  place ;  very  likely  as  disturbers  of  the  public 
peace,  and  after  a  formal  trial  before  the  town  magistrates. 
It  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  Paul  and  Barnabas 

1  Cf .  also  1  Cor.  xv.  3  sq. 

2  Probably  female  proselytes,  who  were  perhaps  induced  by  the  Jews  to 
incite  their  heathen  husbands  against  the  apostles. 


188  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

were  condemned  for  preaching  false  gods  or  for  attacking 
the  religion  of  the  Antiochians.  A  large  measure  of  re- 
ligious liberty  was  enjoyed  in  all  parts  of  the  empire  at 
this  time,  and  the  existence  of  a  Jewish  synagogue  in 
Antioch  shows  that  it  was  enjoyed  there  as  well  as  else- 
where. But  any  uproar  or  disturbance  of  the  public  peace 
the  imperial  and  municipal  authorities  were  always  quick 
to  put  down  with  a  strong  hand,  that  it  might  not  grow 
into  something  worse  and  result  in  widespread  disaffection. 
It  is  probable,  therefore,  that  the  Jews  started  an  outcry 
against  Paul  and  Barnabas,  and  that  the  magistrates,  with- 
out investigating  very  carefully  the  merits  of  the  case, 
thought  it  safer  to  get  the  strangers  out  of  the  city 
before  their  presence  led  to  any  serious  outbreak.  Driven 
out  of  Antioch,  they  went  on  to  Iconium,  a  large  and  im- 
portant Galatian  city,  situated  to  the  southeast  on  the 
way  to  Tarsus  and  Syria.  Here  they  remained  for  some 
time,1  preaching,  at  least  in  the  beginning,  in  the  syna- 
gogue, and  winning  many  converts  among  both  Jews  and 
Greeks  ;  but  they  were  finally  compelled  to  flee  from  Ico- 
nium as  they  had  fled  from  Antioch,  and  they  then  found 
their  way  to  Lystra,  a  city  of  Lycaonia,  but  belonging,  like 
Antioch  and  Iconium,  to  the  province  of  Galatia.  At  the 
time  Paul  and  Barnabas  visited  Lystra,  it  was  not  a  rude 
and  uncivilized  village,  as  has  been  frequently  asserted, 
but  an  important  garrison  town  which  was  a  centre  of 
Roman  culture  and  influence.2  Nothing  is  said  of  their 
preaching  to  the  Jews  in  Lystra,  or  later  in  Derbe,  and 
whether  they  did  or  not,  we  have  no  means  of  knowing. 
But  the  peculiar  experience  which  they  had  with  some  of 
the  heathen  of  the  city,  who  supposed  them  gods  and  pro- 
posed to  offer  sacrifices  to  them,3  would  seem  to  indicate 
that  they  had  more  to  do  while  there  with  Gentiles  than 
with  Jews,  and  that  they  did  not  reach  the  former  merely 
through  the  instrumentality  of  the  latter.  The  incident 
referred  to,  which  was  caused  by  a  miracle  of  healing 


p^vovy  Acts  xiv.  3. 
2  See  Ramsay  :  Church  in  the  Roman  Empire,  p.  47  sq. 
8  Acts  xiv.  11  sq. 


THE  WORK  OF  PAUL  189 

wrought  by  Paul  upon  a  cripple,1  was  entirely  natural 
under  the  circumstances,  and  the  identification  of  Barna- 
bas, the  more  silent  and  passive  of  the  two  travellers,  with 
the  supreme  god  Jupiter,  and  of  the  more  active  Paul 
with  Mercury,  is  strikingly  characteristic  of  the  Oriental 
estimate  of  greatness.  It  is  true  that  the  account  of 
Paul's  miracle  bears  a  close  resemblance  to  the  account  of 
the  healing  of  the  lame  man  by  Peter,  in  Acts  iii.  2  sq., 
and  that  the  apostles'  expostulation  with  their  would-be 
worshippers  is  analogous  to  Peter's  expostulation  with 
Cornelius  in  Acts  x.  26,  and  that  the  words  that  follow 
are  much  like  Paul's  words  in  his  address  to  the  Athenians 
recorded  in  the  seventeenth  chapter  of  Acts.  But  though 
it  may  well  be  that  the  author  felt  the  influence  of  other 
accounts  given  elsewhere  in  his  work,  the  main  incident 
related  in  this  passage  is  too  striking  and  unique  to  have 
been  invented,  and  serves  to  attest  the  general  trustworthi- 
ness of  the  events  that  precede  and  follow  it. 

In  spite  of  the  enthusiasm  with  which  Paul  and  Barna- 
bas were  hailed  by  the  heathen  populace,  hostility  was 
aroused  against  them  by  Jews  who  came  from  Antioch 
and  Iconium,2  and  doubtless  worked  upon  the  prejudices 
of  their  fellow-countrymen  residing  in  Lystra.  It  may 
have  been  easy  for  them  to  incite  the  populace  against  the 
apostles  because  of  the  latter's  rejection  of  the  divine 
honors  which  had  been  offered  them.  At  any  rate,  the 
result  was  that  Paul  was  stoned  by  a  mob  and  left  for 
dead.  Recovering,  he  departed  with  Barnabas  for  Derbe, 
which  lay  somewhat  more  than  a  day's  journey  to  the 
southeast,  and  was  the  frontier  city  of  the  province  in 
that  direction.  Like  Lystra,  Derbe  was  at  this  time  a 
town  of  some  importance,  and  a  centre  of  Roman  life  and 
influence.3  After  making  many  disciples  in  the  city,  the 
apostles  retraced  the  route  by  which  they  had  been  travel- 
ling, passing  through  Lystra,  Iconium,  and  Antioch,  and 

1  That  Paul  worked  miracles,  is  confirmed  by  his  own  statement  in  2  Cor. 
xii.  12.    No  general  argument,  therefore,  can  be  drawn  from  this  and  other 
miracles  related  of  him  in  the  Book  of  Acts  against  the  primitive  character 
of  the  documents  upon  which  the  accounts  are  based. 

2  Acts  xiv.  19.  »  See  Ramsay,  I.e.  p.  54  sq. 


190  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE 

thence  turning  southward  to  Perga,  whence  they  set  sail 
for  Antioch  in  Syria,  the  place  from  which  they  had  started 
upon  their  eventful  tour.  Why  they  went  westward  again 
from  Derbe,  instead  of  crossing  the  mountains  and  going  on 
to  Cilicia  and  Syria  at  once,  as  they  seem  to  have  intended 
to  do  when  they  turned  eastward  from  Pisidian  Antioch, 
we  do  not  know.  It  may  be  that  they  reached  Derbe  in  the 
winter  and  found  the  passes  over  the  Taurus  too  difficult 
to  attempt;  or  it  may  be  that  finding  himself  in  good 
health  once  more,  Paul  decided  before  returning  home  to 
visit  again  his  converts  in  the  other  cities  of  the  province, 
whom  he  had  been  obliged  to  leave  so  abruptly,  and  who, 
he  might  well  fear,  were  in  danger  of  forgetting  him  and 
the  Gospel  which  he  had  preached.1  However  that  may 
be,  he  would  certainly  improve  the  opportunity  afforded 
by  the  return  trip  to  confirm  the  work  that  he  had  already 
done,  and  to  encourage  and  strengthen  his  recent  con- 
verts.2 It  need  not  cause  surprise  that  Paul  and  Barna- 
bas should  revisit  the  cities  from  which  they  had  been  so 
recently  expelled.  It  is  probable  that  they  had  spent 
some  time  in  Derbe,  and  the  excitement  which  their  pres- 
ence had  aroused  in  Antioch,  Iconium,  and  Lystra  had 
very  likely  been  forgotten  before  they  made  their  reap- 
pearance, and  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  any  legal 
bar  against  their  return  existed.  They  owed  their  expul- 
sion from  Iconium  and  Lystra  apparently  not  to  the  magis- 
trates, but  to  the  fury  of  the  populace,  and  even  in  Antioch 
it  is  improbable  that  a  permanent  decree  of  exile  had  been 

1  It  might  be  thought  that  news  had  reached  Paul  that  Jewish  Christians 
were  attempting  to  induce  his  Gentile  converts  to  receive  circumcision  and 
observe  the  Jewish  law.    If  this  were  so,  we  could  easily  explain  his  return  at 
this  time  to  Syrian  Antioch  and  his  subsequent  journey  to  Jerusalem  ;  and  in 
support  of  this  opinion  might  be  urged  Gal.  i.  6  and  v.  3,  which  seem  at  first 
sight  to  imply  that  Paul  had  been  compelled  to  warn  the  Galatians  against 
Judaizers  on  some  previous  occasion  (so  Lightfoot,  Lipsius,  and  many  others). 
But  it  is  to  be  noticed,  on  the  other  hand,  that  Paul  does  not  say,  in  Gal.  i.  6, 
"  I  marvel  that  ye  are  so  soon  again  removing  unto  a  different  gospel."    The 
defection  of  the  Galatians  which  called  forth  his  epistle  to  them  seems  indeed 
to  have  come  upon  him  as  a  complete  surprise ;  and  in  view  of  that  fact  it  is 
hardly  probable  that  he  had  had  to  meet  the  difficulty  before.    It  seems  better, 
therefore,  to  interpret  Gal.  i.  6  and  v.  3,  as  referring  to  the  preceding  context, 
and  not  to  an  earlier  period  when  he  was  with  the  Galatians. 

2  Acts  xiv.  22. 


THE   WORK  OF   PAUL  191 

passed  against  them.  There  was,  therefore,  nothing  for 
them  to  fear  from  the  authorities,  provided  their  pres- 
ence did  not  give  rise  to  another  popular  tumult.  It  is 
hardly  likely,  under  the  circumstances,  that  they  entered 
into  the  synagogues  and  preached  the  Gospel  openly  as 
they  had  before.  It  is  more  probable  that  they  avoided 
publicity  and  devoted  themselves  solely  to  those  who  had 
already  embraced  the  Christian  faith,  as  is  implied  in  Acts 
xiv.  22. 

According  to  vs.  23,  Paul  and  Barnabas  upon  their  return 
trip  through  Lystra,  Iconium,  and  Antioch  appointed  pres- 
byters in  the  various  churches.  In  the  light  of  Paul's 
epistles  in  general  and  especially  of  his  Epistle  to  the  Gala- 
tians,  which  contains  no  hint  of  the  existence  of  officers  in 
the  churches  addressed,  it  is  difficult  to  suppose  that  he 
gave  those  churches  a  fixed  and  definite  organization,  and 
appointed  regular  officers.  It  is  not  improbable,  however, 
that  he  recognized  the  peculiar  respect  and  honor  in  which 
some  of  the  disciples  were  held  by  their  companions,  or  the 
gifts  with  which  they  were  endowed,  or  the  marked  zeal 
and  devotion  with  which  they  gave  themselves  to  the 
spread  of  the  Gospel  and  to  the  service  of  their  brethren, 
or  the  diligence  and  faithfulness  with  which  they  looked 
after  the  interests  of  the  church,  and  that  he  exhorted  the 
disciples  in  general  to  follow  the  guidance  of  such  Christians 
and  to  be  subject  unto  them  in  the  Lord,1  in  order  that 
confusion  and  division  might  be  avoided  and  the  growth 
of  the  church  be  wholesome  and  vigorous.  More  than 
this  it  can  hardly  be  supposed  that  he  did  at  this  time.2 

That  Paul's  missionary  work  in  Galatia  was  productive 
of  large  results,  especially  among  the  Gentiles,  and  that  the 
churches  which  he  founded  were  very  near  his  heart,  is  made 
abundantly  manifest  by  his  Galatian  Epistle.  Whether  his 
stay  in  the  province  lasted  only  a  few  months,  or  covered  a 
period  of  some  years,  he  could  look  back  upon  it  after  he 
had  returned  to  Syrian  Antioch  with  joy ;  for  he  had  been 
received  by  the  Galatians  as  an  angel  of  God,  and  had  won 

iCf.  ICor.  xvi.  16. 

2  Upon  the  development  of  ecclesiastical  organization,  see  below,  p.  645  sq. 


192  THE   APOSTOLIC    AGE 

their  love  and  been  treated  by  them  with  the  utmost  devo- 
tion.1 His  missionary  journey  had  been  a  great  success  so 
far  as  the  Gentiles  were  concerned,  and  though  prevented 
by  sickness  from  fulfilling  his  cherished  plan,  he  had  yet 
made  large  conquests  and  had  shown  himself  eminently 
fitted  to  carry  the  Gospel  into  distant  lands  and  among 
foreign  peoples.  He  must  have  returned  to  Antioch  with 
a  firmer  conviction  than  ever  that  his  life  work  was  to  be 
the  evangelization  of  the  heathen  world  and  with  the  fixed 
determination  to  continue  at  the  earliest  opportunity  the 
campaign  so  auspiciously  begun. 

5.  THE  CONFLICT  WITH  JUDAIZERS 

But  in  the  meantime  an  event  occurred  which  threatened 
to  undo  all  that  Paul  had  accomplished,  and  to  put  an  end 
once  and  for  all  to  Gentile  Christianity ;  an  event  which 
caused  him  the  greatest  anxiety,  and  the  consequences  of 
which  he  felt  for  many  years.  According  to  Acts  xv.  1, 
certain  men  came  down  from  Judea  to  Antioch  and  taught 
the  brethren  that  they  could  not  be  saved  unless  they 
received  circumcision  and  thus  became  members  of  the 
family  of  Israel.  The  demand  which  was  thus  made  of 
the  Gentile  Christians  of  Antioch  involved  a  distinct  repu- 
diation of  the  position  taken  by  the  church  of  Jerusalem 
on  an  earlier  occasion  when  the  legitimacy  of  Gentile  Chris- 
tianity was  acknowledged,2  and  yet  it  was  a  most  natural 
thing  under  the  circumstances  that  the  demand  should  be 
made.  It  is  by  no  means  certain  that  all  the  Christians  of 
Jerusalem  acquiesced  heartily  in  the  approval  given  to  Peter 
by  the  church  as  a  whole.  It  was  inevitable  that  there 
should  be  then  and  that  there  should  continue  to  be  two 
opinions  as  to  the  wisdom  and  propriety  of  such  a  course. 
But  those  who  disapproved  may  have  been  too  few  in  num- 
ber, and  of  too  little  personal  weight,  to  be  able  to  make 
their  opposition  seriously  felt,  and  they  may  have  thought 
it  best  to  accept  quietly  what  they  could  not  prevent.  But 
as  time  passed  and  as  the  church  of  Jerusalem  increased  in 

i  Gal.  iv.  14, 15.  2  See  above,  p.  101  sq. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  198 

size,  it  is  conceivable  that  the  number  multiplied  of  those 
who  believed  that  circumcision  was  in  each  and  every  case 
absolutely  necessary  to  salvation.  And  even  among  those 
who  had  formerly  given  their  approval  to  the  conduct  of 
Peter  in  the  case  of  Cornelius,  and  had  joined  with  their 
brethren  in  recognizing  the  possibility  of  a  non-Jewish 
Christianity,  there  can  hardly  have  failed  to  be  some  who 
were  increasingly  troubled  by  the  rapid  growth, of  an  inde- 
pendent Gentile  church  and  by  the  evident  tendency  on 
the  part  not  only  of  the  converts  from  the  heathen,  but 
also  of  the  missionaries  that  worked  among  them,  to  regard 
the  form  of  Christianity  which  they  possessed  as  of  equal 
dignity  and  worth  with  the  original  Jewish  Christianity  of 
Christ  himself  and  of  his  apostles,  and  thus  to  rob  God's 
chosen  people  of  all  their  prerogatives  and  the  divine  law 
of  all  its  sanctity.  It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  in 
course  of  time  there  should  be  a  large  number  within  the 
church  of  Jerusalem  who  shared  the  conviction  that  a  halt 
should  be  called  and  that  a  firm  stand  should  be  made 
for  the  religion  of  Moses  and  of  Christ.  How  long  it  was 
after  the  return  of  Paul  and  Barnabas  to  Antioch  before 
matters  came  to  a  head  and  the  conflict  was  precipitated, 
we  do  not  know,  but  it  may  well  be  that  the  news  of  the 
great  success  which  they  had  had  in  Galatia  and  the  large 
number  of  Gentiles  that  had  been  converted  there  led  the 
stricter  party  to  feel  that  it  would  be  fatal  to  delay  longer ; 
that  the  time  had  come  when  a  public  and  decisive  stand 
must  be  made  against  the  dangerous  movement  which  was 
spreading  so  rapidly.  And  hence  it  may  have  been  very 
soon  after  their  return  that  the  emissaries  from  Jerusalem 
appeared  in  the  city,  insisting  that  the  Gospel  which  Paul 
and  Barnabas  were  preaching  was  all  a  mistake,  and  that 
no  Gentile  could  be  saved  unless  he  were  "circumcised 
after  the  custom  of  Moses."  l 

1  The  "  false  brethren  "  of  Gal.  ii.  5  were  probably  those  that  came  down 
to  Antioch  and  disturbed  Paul  there,  and  not  brethren  that  came  forward  at 
the  time  of  the  council  in  Jerusalem  and  insisted  on  Titus'  circumcision.  The 
reference  in  Gal.  ii.  5  is  apparently  to  the  larger  subject.  Because  of  the 
men  that  had  made  all  the  trouble,  Paul  took  a  firm  stand  at  Jerusalem  on 
the  great  question  and  yielded  not  a  single  iota  at  any  point. 
o 


194  THE  APOSTOLIC    AGE 

The  excitement  that  must  have  been  caused  in  the 
Antiochian  church  by  such  an  announcement  may  be 
easily  imagined.  The  emissaries  came  from  Judea  and 
doubtless  claimed  to  represent  the  Mother  Church  of 
Christendom,  and  thus  a  peculiar  authority  seemed  to 
attach  to  their  declaration.  The  crisis  was  a  serious  one. 
Paul  might  be  confident  of  his  own  apostolic  calling  and 
might  be  convinced  that  he  had  received  his  Gospel  from 
God  and  not  from  man ;  and  yet  it  was  clear  that  if  the 
apostles,  who  had  been  Christ's  chosen  companions  during 
his  earthly  ministry,  and  were  in  consequence  generally  be- 
lieved to  know  the  Master's  will  most  fully,  — if  they  were 
to  declare  that  form  of  Christianity  which  Paul  and  his 
fellows  had  been  preaching  all  a  mistake,  the  work  which 
they  had  already  accomplished  would  be  practically  de- 
stroyed and  there  would  remain  little  or  no  hope  of  winning 
the  heathen  world  for  Christ.  It  was  under  these  circum- 
stances that  Paul,  whose  heart  was  bound  up  in  the 
preaching  of  the  Gospel  to  the  Roman  world,  felt  it  to  be 
the  will  of  God  that  he  should  go  himself  to  Jerusalem 
and  settle  the  matter  once  and  for  all  with  the  older 
apostles.1  They  must  be  induced  to  repudiate  distinctly 
the  demands  made  by  their  alleged  representatives. 

Paul  was  accompanied  upon  his  journey  not  only  by  his 
fellow-worker  Barnabas,  who  had  himself  been  at  one  time 
a  prominent  member  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem  and  whose 
influence  and  support  must  be  very  desirable  at  such  a 
time,  but  also  by  Titus,  one  of  his  own  Gentile  converts,2  by 
whose  presence  he  hoped  perhaps  to  give  an  ocular  demon- 
stration of  the  success  of  his  work  among  the  heathen  and 
of  the  blessing  of  God  which  had  attended  it.  Paul's 
account3  of  the  events  that  took  place  during  his  stay  in 
Jerusalem  is  very  brief  and  the  details  are  somewhat 
obscure,  but  the  general  outcome  is  entirely  clear.  His 

1Paul  says  in  Gal.  ii.  2:  "I  went  up  by  revelation."  These  words  do 
not  exclude  the  commission  laid  upon  him  by  his  Antiochian  brethren  which 
is  recorded  in  Acts  xv.  2  (and  xi.  30)  ;  but  they  show  that  it  was  not  their  ap- 
pointment but  his  own  conviction  of  the  Divine  Will  that  led  him  to  under- 
take the  journey. 

2  Gal.  ii.  3 ;  Titus  i.  4.  3  Gal.  ii.  1-10. 


THE   WORK   OF  PAUL  195 

words  in  Gal.  ii.  2  imply  that  he  laid  the  Gospel  which 
he  preached  among  the  Gentiles  not  only  before  the 
disciples  in  general,  but  also  privately  before  those  of 
repute,1  meaning  apparently  the  "pillars,"  James,  Peter,  and 
John.2  The  recognition  of  the  legitimacy  of  Gentile  Chris- 
tianity, which  was  the  fundamental  thing  with  him,  was 
bitterly  opposed  by  those  whom  he  calls  "  false  brethren," 
but  in  spite  of  their  opposition  he  succeeded  in  carrying  his 
point  and  convincing  not  only  the  apostles,  but  also  the 
church  as  a  whole,  that  God  had  already  set  the  seal  of  his 
approval  upon  the  Gospel  which  he  preached  among  the 
Gentiles,  and  had  thus  distinctly  declared  that  men  may 
be  saved  without  receiving  circumcision.  But  his  oppo- 
nents, when  they  found  themselves  defeated,  proposed 
apparently  that  at  least  Titus  should  be  circumcised.3 
They  might  with  some  show  of  reason  insist  that  even 
though  the  legitimacy  of  Gentile  Christianity  were  ac- 
knowleged,  it  was  unseemly  that  the  Jew,  Paul,  should  have 
with  him  as  his  companion  and  fellow-  worker  an  uncir- 
cumcised  Greek,  and  that  it  was  an  unnecessary  offence  to 
the  sentiment  of  the  Christians  of  Jerusalem  to  bring  such 
a  man  into  their  midst.  They  may  have  contended,  more- 
over, that  the  circumcision  of  Titus  at  this  time  would 
have  the  effect  of  allaying  somewhat  the  hostility  of  the 
unconverted  Jews,  as  they  saw  Christianity  thus  becoming 
a  bridge  from  heathenism  to  Judaism  ;  and  they  perhaps 
expressed  themselves  as  willing  to  submit  to  the  majority 
in  the  larger  matter  if  an  exception  were  made  to  the  general 
principle  in  this  particular  case.  The  proposition  was  thus 
apparently  of  the  nature  of  a  compromise,  and  it  may  be  that 
it  was  supported  by  many  of  those  who  had  taken  Paul's 
side  upon  the  main  question,  possibly  even  by  the  apostles.4 
But  Paul  and  Barnabas  refused  absolutely  to  give  their 
consent  to  the  proposal.5  The  reason  for  their  refusal  is 


1  Ka.1  aved^/jLTjv  cnJro?s  rb  eta.yyf\iov  .  .  .  /car'  Idlav  S£  ro 

2  Gal.  ii.  9.  a  Gal.  ii.  3. 

4  The  words  ofs  ovd£  irpbs  wpav  et^a/j-ev  rrj  vtrorayri   (vs.  5)  seem  to  imply 
that  Paul  and  Barnabas  stood  almost,  if  not  quite,  alone  in  their  opposition  to 
this  compromise. 

5  Gal.  ii.  3. 


196  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE 

stated  by  Paul  in  vss.  4  and  5.  "  On  account  of  the  false 
brethren  who  came  in  to  spy  out  our  liberty,  we  stood 
out  firmly  in  this  matter  also,"  he  seems  to  say,  "and  did 
not  yield  even  for  a  moment."  He  evidently  saw  clearly 
that  the  proposition  was  not  as  harmless  as  it  seemed; 
that  it  meant  practically  a  recognition  in  Jerusalem  itself 
of  a  principle  that  had  just  been  repudiated  for  the  church 
at  large,  and  that  it  was  bound  to  be  used  by  his  opponents 
against  him  and  his  work  among  the  Gentiles.  By  his 
refusal,  in  which  the  church  at  Jerusalem  finally  sustained 
him,  he  asserted  unequivocally  the  full  rights  of  Gentile 
Christianity  and  thus  the  truth  of  the  Gospel  was  pre- 
served not  for  the  Galatians  alone,  but  for  all  converts 
from  the  heathen  world.1 

But  this  recognition  of  the  legitimacy  of  Gentile  Chris- 
tianity was  not  all  that  Paul  secured  at  Jerusalem.  Both 
he  and  Barnabas  received  from  those  who  were  esteemed 
"pillars,"  that  is,  from  James  and  Peter  and  John,  the 
right  hand  of  fellowship,  in  which  was  involved  the  ac- 
knowledgment of  their  divine  call  to  preach  the  Gospel 
among  the  Gentiles ;  in  which  was  involved,  moreover,  the 
recognition  of  their  right  to  preach  just  as  they  had  been 
preaching,  for  Paul  expressly  asserts  that  the  apostles 
imparted  nothing  to  him,  that  they  did  not  in  any  way 
enlarge  or  curtail  or  modify  the  Gospel  which  had  been 
given  him  by  God  and  not  by  man.2  It  is  significant  that 
Paul  does  not  say  that  he  and  Barnabas  received  this  en- 
dorsement from  the  Jerusalem  church  as  a  whole,  as  he 
could  hardly  have  failed  to  had  it  been  a  fact.  It  may 
well  be  that  though  the  majority  of  the  disciples  were  will- 
ing to  admit  that  Gentiles  might  become  Christians  with- 
out becoming  Jews,  they  were  not  ready  to  set  the  seal  of 
their  approval  upon  the  evangelistic  methods  of  Paul,  who 
unequivocally  asserted  the  absolute  liberty  and  indepen- 
dence of  his  Gentile  converts,  and  flatly  refused  to  adopt 
any  measures  to  win  them  over  to  the  religion  of  Moses, 
and  thus  make  their  Christianity  a  bridge  to  the  Christian 
Judaism  of  the  Mother  Church.  It  was  perhaps  under 

1  Gal.  ii.  5.  2  Gal.  ii.  6  sq. 


THE  WOKK  OF  PAUL  197 

these  circumstances  that  Paul  had  the  private  interview 
with  the  apostles  of  which  he  speaks  in  vs.  2.  He  must 
have  seen  clearly  that  if  he  left  Jerusalem  without  secur- 
ing any  kind  of  an  endorsement,  the  Judaizers  would  be 
certain  to  use  the  circumstance  against  him,  and  even 
though  they  might  be  compelled  to  recognize  the  legitimacy 
of  Gentile  Christianity  in  general,  would  undermine  his 
influence  and  hinder  him  in  his  work,  and  would  appeal 
to  the  authority  of  the  Mother  Church  for  so  doing.  To 
obtain  from  the  apostles,  therefore,  the  approval  which  the 
church  at  large  was  not  prepared  to  give  him  was  a  mat- 
ter of  vital  importance. 

But  though  Paul  received  from  James  and  Peter  and 
John  the  right  hand  of  fellowship,  and  though  they 
frankly  recognized  his  divine  call  to  preach  the  Gospel 
among  the  Gentiles,  and  though  they  refrained  from 
adding  anything  to  or  taking  anything  from  the  mes- 
sage with  which  he  believed  himself  entrusted,  it  is  to  be 
noticed  that  there  is.  no  sign  that  he  was  acknowledged 
by  them  as  a  fellow  apostle.1  It  is  significant,  indeed,  that 
in  vs.  8,  where  he  speaks  of  the  apostleship  of  Peter,  he 
says  nothing  of  his  own,  a  very  surprising  fact  in  view  of 
the  emphasis  which  he  lays  upon  his  apostolic  commission 
in  the  opening  of  his  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  and  in  view 
of  the  special  importance  of  maintaining  his  influence  and 
authority  under  existing  circumstances.  In  his  Epis- 
tles to  the  Corinthians  also,  where  he  has  occasion  to 
defend  himself  against  those  who  deny  him  to  be  an 
apostle,2  he  says  nothing  of  having  been  recognized  as 
such  by  the  Twelve  or  by  any  of  their  number,  though 
the  mention  of  such  a  fact  would  certainly  have  stopped 
the  mouths  of  his  antagonists.3  It  may  well  be  that 

1  Cf.  Holsten :  Evangelium  des  Paulus,  S.  21. 

2  1  Cor.  ix. ;  2  Cor.  xii.,  etc. 

3  It  cannot  be  urged  that  Paul's  silence  both  in  Galatians  and  Corinthians 
was  due  to  his  wish  not  to  seem  dependent  upon  the  earlier  apostles  for  the 
Gospel  which  he  preached ;  for  the  statement  that  his  apostleship  had  been 
recognized  by  them  would  no  more  impair  or  throw  suspicion  upon  his  inde- 
pendence, than  the  statement  that  his  call  to  labor  among  the  Gentiles  had 
been  so  recognized.    It  may  be  that  his  insistence  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Gala- 
tians upon  the  fact  that  he  was  an  apostle  not  by  man's  appointment  and 


198  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

though  James  and  Peter  and  John  were  ready,  when  they 
saw  the  grace  that  was  given  him,  to  acknowledge  Paul's 
divine  call  to  do  missionary  work  among  the  Gentiles, 
they  were  not  willing  to  grant  that  he  had  the  right  to 
share  in  the  peculiar  privileges  and  prerogatives  which  they 
doubtless  thought  would  attach  to  Jesus'  personal  compan- 
ions and  disciples  in  the  approaching  kingdom  of  the  Mes- 
siah. And  they  may  well  have  believed  still,  even  though 
they  recognized  a  Gentile  Christianity,  that  in  the  Messi- 
anic kingdom  the  chosen  people  were  to  be  supreme  and 
that  consequently  no  missionary  to  the  Gentiles,  however 
abundant  his  labors,  could  share  the  pre-eminence  enjoyed 
by  the  apostles  to  the  Jews,  by  those  to  whom  had  been 
entrusted  the  evangelization  and  to  whom  would  one  day 
be  committed  the  judgment  of  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel.1 
In  the  light  of  all  that  has  been  said,  it  is  clear  that 
though  Paul  considered  himself  an  apostle  and  did  not 
hesitate  to  call  himself  such  in  his  epistles,  and  though  he 
later  declared  himself  to  be  not  a  whit  behind  the  very 
chiefest  apostles,2  yet  he  was  not  recognized  as  such  upon 
the  occasion  of  his  visit  to  Jerusalem,  either  by  the  older 
apostles  or  by  the  church. 

What  has  been  said  upon  this  subject  suggests  the  possi- 
bility that  James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  who  was  cer- 
tainly not  one  of  the  original  Twelve,3  had  before  this 
time  been  made  an  apostle  by  the  choice  of  the  brethren, 
as  Matthias  had  been  many  years  before.  That  appoint- 
ment showed  that  it  was  the  belief  of  the  church  of 
Jerusalem,  at  any  rate  in  its  early  days,  that  the  number 
of  the  apostles  should  be  kept  at  twelve,  and  we  know  of 
nothing  that  had  happened  in  the  meantime  to  lead  to  a 
change  of  view.  In  fact,  it  is  altogether  likely  that  the 
belief  continued  among  the  immediate  disciples  of  Jesus 

commission,  but  by  God's,  was  itself  due  in  part  to  his  failure  to  secure  such 
recognition  either  from  the  church  of  Jerusalem  or  from  its  leaders.  It  was 
not  that  the  mere  name  "  apostle  "  was  denied  him,  for  the  name  was  a  very  gen- 
eral one,  and  attached  in  those  days  to  many  besides  the  Twelve  (see  below, 
p.  (54(>) ;  but  that  they  failed  to  recognize  him  as  possessing  equal  dignity  with 
themselves,  and  as  an  apostle  in  any  such  sense  as  they  were. 

i  Matt.  xix.  28.  2  2  Cor.  xi.  5,  xii.  11. 

«  Cf .  John  vii.  25,  and  see  p.  51(J,  below. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  199 

as  long  as  they  retained  the  idea  that  Christianity  was 
solely  or  even  chiefly  for  the  Jews,  or  that  the  Jews  were 
to  enjoy  a  pre-eminence  over  Gentiles  within  the  Messianic 
kingdom.  It  may  well  be,  therefore,  that  when  James 
the  son  of  Zebedee  was  slain,  James  the  brother  of  the 
Lord  was  chosen  to  fill  his  place,  and  that  he  was  thence- 
forth numbered  among  the  Twelve,  with  whom  Paul  him- 
self seems  to  class  him  in  Gal.  i.  19.1 

Though  Paul  received  from  James  and  Peter  and  John, 
as  has  been  seen,  the  right  hand  of  fellowship,  and  though 
his  divine  call  to  preach  among  the  Gentiles  was  frankly 
recognized,  and  though  nothing  was  added  to  or  taken 
from  his  message,  it  was  not  agreed  that  his  Gospel  was 
in  any  way  to  supplant  or  take  the  place  of  the  Gospel 
of  the  original  apostles,  or  that  it  was  to  be  preached 
among  the  Jews.  In  fact,  the  compact  entered  into  by 
Paul  and  Barnabas  with  the  "  pillars  "  at  Jerusalem  in- 
volved not  so  much  a  union  as  a  division.  James,  Peter, 
and  John  were  to  continue  to  preach  as  they  had  been 
in  the  habit  of  doing  to  the  Jews,  while  Paul  and  Barna- 
bas Avere  to  go  on  preaching  to  the  Gentiles.  But  that 
was  not  all.  It  was  not  simply  two  distinct  fields  that 
were  provided  for,  but  two  distinct  messages.  Paul  and 
Barnabas  were  to  preach  to  the  Gentiles  the  Gospel  of 
the  uncircumcision,  while  the  others  were  to  preach  to  the 
Jews  the  Gospel  of  the  circumcision.  The  assumption  was 
that  the  law  should  continue  to  be  binding  upon  all  Jews, 
and  that  to  the  heathen  alone  should  be  proclaimed  liberty 
from  its  bondage.  If  the  apostles  of  Jerusalem  were  not 
to  go  to  the  Gentiles  and  preach  to  them  subjection  to  the 
Jewish  law  as  the  Judaizers  had  done  at  Antioch,  neither 
was  Paul  to  go  to  the  Jews  with  his  message  of  freedom 
from  the  law  and  teach  them  to  neglect  and  disregard  it. 
In  securing  recognition  for  his  own  Gospel,  therefore, 
Paul  gave  his  approval  to  the  Gospel  of  the  Jewish  Chris- 

1  That  the  choice  should  fall  upon  James  was  altogether  natural,  for  his 
relationship  to  Jesus  must  have  made  him  a  conspicuous  figure  in  the  church 
of  Jerusalem  from  the  time  of  his  conversion  ;  and  his  character  was  such 
as  to  excite  the  respect  and  admiration  of  all  his  countrymen.  See  below, 
p.  551  sq. 


200  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

tians.  The  compact  was  a  mutual  one,  and  it  meant 
the  division  of  the  church  by  common  consent  into  two 
denominations,  a  Jewish  and  a  Gentile,  or  rather  it  meant 
the  express  sanction  and  perpetuation  of  a  division  already 
existing.  It  may  have  been  the  sense  of  the  danger  to  the 
spirit  of  Christian  brotherhood  that  lurked  in  such  denomi- 
nationalism  that  led  the  apostles  to  suggest  that  Paul  and 
Barnabas  should  secure  contributions  from  their  Gentile 
converts  for  the  poor  of  Jerusalem.  They  may  have 
believed,  and  Paul  doubtless  agreed  with  them  and  hence 
gladly  fulfilled  their  desire,  that  such  an  exercise  of 
charity  would  warm  the  hearts  both  of  those  that  gave 
and  those  that  received,  and  would  thus  prevent  the  loss 
of  fraternal  sympathy  and  affection.1  But  there  was  more 
than  this  in  their  request.  It  is  to  be  noticed  that  they 
did  not  propose  to  minister  to  the  necessities  of  the  Gen- 
tiles, but  only  to  receive  their  ministrations.  And  there 
can  be  little  doubt  that  they  made  the  suggestion  they 
did  with  the  idea  that  expression  might  thus  be  given  to 
the  superior  dignity  and  prerogatives  of  the  Jews,  the 
sense  of  which  the  Gentile  Christians  would  be  in  danger 
of  losing  when  freed  from  all  obligation  to  observe  the 
Jewish  law.  Even  Paul  had  something  of  the  sort  in  mind 
when  he  wrote  the  words :  "  It  hath  been  the  good  pleasure 
of  Macedonia  and  Achaia  to  make  a  certain  contribution 
for  the  poor  among  the  saints  that  are  at  Jerusalem.  Yea, 
it  hath  been  their  good  pleasure ;  and  their  debtors  they 
are.  For  if  the  Gentiles  have  been  made  partakers  of 
their  spiritual  things,  they  owe  it  to  them  also  to  minister 
unto  them  in  carnal  things."2  And  that  in  spite  of  his 
strenuous  assertion  of  the  Christian's  freedom  from  all  law, 
including  the  law  of  Moses,  he  yet  shared  in  a  measure  the 
national  pride  and  sense  of  superiority,  is  made  abundantly 
manifest  by  many  other  passages.3  It  is  clear,  therefore, 
that  Paul  could  have  no  serious  objection  to  the  proposi- 
tion of  the  apostles,  but  of  course  he  did  not  intend  to 
sanction  by  the  collection,  as  possibly  they  did,  the  notion 

1  On  the  closing  words  of  Gal.  ii.  10,  see  above,  p.  171. 

2  Rom.  xv.  26,  27.  «  Rom.  iii.  1  sq.,  xi.  24,  28,  etc. 


THE  WORK  OF  PAUL  201 

that  Jewish  Christianity  was  in  any  way  superior  to  Gen- 
tile Christianity,  or  that  the  Christian  who  was  circumcised 
and  kept  the  law  of  Moses  stood  upon  a  higher  plane 
religiously  than  other  Christians.  Such  a  notion  he  re- 
pudiated over  and  over  again  in  his  epistles. 

Paul  accomplished  much  by  his  visit  to  Jerusalem,  and 
he  might  well  look  back  with  satisfaction  at  the  way  in 
which  "  the  truth  of  the  Gospel "  had  there  been  vindi- 
cated and  maintained  ;  but  he  did  not  secure  all  that  he  had 
hoped  to.  It  was  doubtless  a  disappointment  to  him  that 
the  church  of  Jerusalem  as  a  whole  did  not  give  him  the 
right  hand  of  fellowship  and  commend  him  to  the  con- 
fidence and  affection  of  all  the  brethren ;  and  perhaps  he 
was  disappointed  that  the  apostles  did  not  recognize  him 
as  one  of  themselves,  and  declare  him  to  be  an  apostle  of 
Christ  as  truly  as  they.  Moreover,  the  evident  determina- 
tion, not  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem  alone,  but  of  the  apos- 
tles as  well,  to  draw  a  sharp  line  of  demarcation  between 
the  two  wings  of  the  church,  and  to  insist  that  Christians 
of  Jewish  birth  should  continue  to  observe  the  law  of  their 
fathers  in  all  its  strictness,  must  have  been  anything  but. 
pleasing  to  him.  Believing  as  he  did  in  the  complete 
freedom  of  every  Christian,  whether  Jew  or  Gentile,  he 
must  have  regarded  with  great  dissatisfaction  the  action 
of  the  disciples  of  Jerusalem  in  this  matter,  action  which 
fell  far  below  his  large  and  broad  conception  of  the  Gos- 
pel, and  which  was  calculated  to  keep  alive  the  idea  that 
there  was  saving  efficacy  in  the  observance  of  the  law  of 
Moses.  Knowing  also  far  better  than  they  the  conditions 
that  existed  in  foreign  cities,  where  Jews  and  Gentiles 
were  unavoidably  thrown  into  more  or  less  intimate  re- 
lations with  each  other,  and  where  there  must  inevitably 
be  many  Christians  of  both  classes,  he  must  have  seen,  as 
they  did  not,  that  the  separation  which  they  contemplated, 
if  vigorously  enforced  in  all  places,  would  give  rise  to 
endless  trouble  and  dispute.  But  as  he  had  gained  his 
main  point,  he^was  willing  for  the  present  to  leave  the  mat- 
ter of  association  between  Gentile  and  Jewish  Christians 
unsettled.  He  doubtless  felt  that  he  could  not  demand 


202  1?HE  APOSTOLIC  AGE 

any  more  at  this  time  without  imperilling  all  that  he  had 
secured,  for  he  saw  clearly  that  neither  the  church  of 
Jerusalem  nor  the  apostles  were  prepared  to  admit  the 
right  of  a  Jewish  Christian  to  disregard  the  law  and  to 
mingle  unrestrainedly  with  his  Gentile  brethren.  To  insist 
that  a  disciple  of  Hebrew  birth  had  such  a  right  would 
have  been  doubtless  to  turn  them  all  against  him  and 
to  give  the  victory  to  the  Judaizers.1  He  therefore  con- 
tented himself  with  the  guarantee  of  Gentile  liberty, 
which  was  his  chief  concern,  and  left  to  the  future  the 
settlement  of  the  farther  question,  which  he  knew,  as 
the  apostles  did  not,  was  bound  to  arise  sooner  or  later. 

It  was  not  very  long  after  the  conference  at  Jerusalem 
that  the  question  arose  at  Antioch,  upon  the  occasion  of  a 
visit  with  which  Peter  favored  the  Christians  of  that  city. 
Whether  the  action  of  the  church  and  of  the  apostles  in  Jeru- 
salem had  affected  in  any  way  the  relations  between  the 
Jewish  and  Gentile  disciples  in  Antioch,  we  do  not  know; 
but  at  the  time  when  Peter  visited  the  city,  it  is  clear  that 
there  were  at  least  some  Jews,  perhaps  many,  who  had 
thrown  aside  their  religious  scruples  and  were  associating 
intimately  with  their  Gentile  brethren.  They  may  not  of 
course  have  ceased  to  observe  the  law  in  other  respects,  but 
they  were  entirely  disregarding  it  so  far  as  it  prohibited 
fellowship  with  the  uncircumcised.  Such  conduct  on  the 
part  of  Jewish  Christians  had  not  been  expressly  forbidden 
at  the  Council  of  Jerusalem,  —  probably  because  it  was  not 
supposed  that  there  would  arise  any  need  of  such  a  prohi- 
bition ;  but  its  unlawfulness  had  been  assumed  in  the  agree- 
ment which  the  apostles  had  concluded  with  Paul ;  for  it 

1  What  was  thought  of  Paul's  own  conduct  and  of  the  conduct  of  Barnabas 
in  associating  intimately  with  their  heathen  converts,  we  do  not  know.  It 
maybe  that  it  was  just  because  an  approval  of  their  missionary  work  and  their 
evangelistic  methods  meant  the  acknowledgment  of  their  right,  though  Jews, 
to  disregard  the  law  of  their  fathers,  that  the  church  of  Jerusalem  refrained 
from  expressing  their  approval.  It  may  be  that  it  was  only  with  difficulty 
that  the  apostles  were  induced  to  do  what  the  church  as  a  whole  did  not  do, 
feeling  driven  by  the  witness  of  the  Spirit,  which  had  been  accorded  in  such 
large  measure  to  Paul  and  Barnabas,  to  admit  an  exception  in  their  case  to 
the  general  rule  of  Jewish  Christian  conduct.  Possibly  one  reason  for  their 
refusal  to  recognize  Paul  as  an  apostle,  like  themselves,  lay  in  the  fact  that  he 
did  not  observe  the  law  in  all  its  strictness. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  203 

was  stipulated  by  them  that  though  Paul  and  Barnabas 
might  preach  to  the  Gentiles  their  Gospel  of  absolute  free- 
dom from  the  Jewish  law,  they  were  not  to  preach  it  to  the 
Jews.  But  in  spite  of  that  fact,  at  a  time  not  long  after  the 
conference,  Jewish  Christians  in  Antioch  were  disregarding 
at  least  a  part  of  their  ancestral  law,  and  Peter  upon  his 
arrival  among  them  was  so  impressed  with  the  faith  of  the 
Gentile  converts  and  with  the  fraternal  spirit  which  bound 
the  two  classes  of  disciples  together,  that  he  also  threw  his 
scruples  to  the  wind  and,  following  the  example  of  Paul 
and  Barnabas  and  many  others,  associated  freely  and  openly 
with  the  uncircumcised.1  Peter  can  hardly  have  expected 
to  do  this  when  he  left  Jerusalem.  Certainly  it  was  not 
in  his  thought  at  the  time  of  the  conference  and  it  was  a 
distinct  step  in  advance  of  the  position  agreed  upon  there. 
And  yet  for  Peter,  warm-hearted  and  impulsive  Christian 
as  he  was,  the  step  was  a  most  natural  one.  It  may  fairly 
be  doubted  whether  he  believed  even  at  the  time  of  the 
council  that  the  observance  of  the  Jewish  law  was  abso- 
lutely essential  to  the  salvation  of  any  one.  It  is  altogether 
likely  that  Acts  xv.  11  is  correct  in  representing  him  as  tak- 
ing the  position  even  then  that  Jewish  Christians  were  to 
be  saved  not  by  the  observance  of  the  law,  but  by  the  grace 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  in  the  same  manner  as  the  Gentiles.2  He 
doubtless  believed  with  James  and  John  that  under  ordi- 
nary circumstances  the  obligation  rested  upon  the  Jew  to 
observe  the  law  of  the  Fathers,  even  though  he  was  a 
disciple  of  Christ,  just  as  Jesus  himself  had  done  dur- 
ing his  life,  and  that  the  Jewish  people  as  a  whole  were 
to  continue  to  observe  it  at  least  until  they  should  be  re- 
leased from  the  obligation  by  the  Messiah.  But  such  a 
belief  was  not  inconsistent  with  the  idea  that  there  might 
be  exceptions  to  the  rule  and  that  what  was  true  under 
ordinary  circumstances  and  of  the  people  as  a  whole  was 

1  Pfleiderer  (Urchristenthum,  S.  572)  suggests  that  the  vision  on  the  house- 
top recorded  in  Acts  x.  9  sq.  belongs  to  this  time,  and  that  it  was  that  vision, 
or  something  similar  to  it,  that  led  Peter  to  throw  aside  his  scruples,  and  eat 
and  drink  with  the  uncircumcised. 

2  Cf .  Gal.  ii.  16,  where  Paul  seems  to  be  stating  a  belief  common  both  to 
Peter  and  himself. 


204  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

not  necessarily  true  under  all  circumstances  and  of  every 
individual.  If  it  was  this  conception  of  the  Jewish  Chris- 
tian's relation  to  the  law  that  Peter  had  at  the  time  of  the 
conference  in  Jerusalem,  it  is  easy  to  understand  how,  for 
the  sake  of  Paul  and  Barnabas  and  the  Gentile  brethren 
whom  he  found  in  Antioch,  he  could  cut  himself  loose 
from  the  trammels  of  the  law  and  could  go  in  and  out 
among  them  with  perfect  freedom. 

All  went  well  in  Antioch  until  messengers  from  James 
arrived  and  took  Peter  to  task  for  his  conduct.  The  result 
of  their  remonstrance  was  that  he  drew  back  and  separated 
himself  from  the  Gentiles,  and  the  influence  of  his  example 
was  so  great  that  the  rest  of  the  Jewish  Christians,  includ- 
ing even  Barnabas,  did  the  same  thing.  The  occurrence  was 
a  most  unfortunate  one  and  elicited  from  Paul  a  severe 
arraignment  of  Peter.  He  seems  to  have  called  a  meeting 
of  the  church  and  to  have  administered  a  public  rebuke  to 
the  great  apostle.  "  When  T  saw,"  he  says, "  that  they  walked 
not  uprightly  according  to  the  truth  of  the  gospel,  I  said 
unto  Cephas  before  them  all,  If  thou,  being  a  Jew,  livest  as 
do  the  Gentiles,  and  not  as  do  the  Jews,  how  compellest 
thou  the  Gentiles  to  live  as  do  the  Jews  ?  " 1  It  is  to  be 
observed  that  Paul  arraigns  Peter  for  a  double  offence  :  on 
the  one  hand  for  his  inconsistency,  for  the  apparent  lack 
of  accord  between  his  principles  and  his  practice ;  and  on 
the  other  hand  for  his  violation  of  the  compact  entered 
into  at  Jerusalem.  Paul  did  not  rebuke  Peter  for  holding 
a  conception  of  the  Gospel  which  differed  from  his  own, 
but  for  doing  violence  to  that  conception  which  his  previous 
conduct  seemed  to  indicate  that  they  both  shared.  Peter's 
inconsistency  did  not  lie  in  the  fact  that  having  lived  like 
a  Gentile,  he  afterwards  lived  like  a  Jew.  That  he  might 
have  done  without  incurring  any  such  charge  ;  for  though 
by  his  neglect  of  the  law  he  had  apparently  placed  himself 
squarely  upon  the  ground  held  by  Paul,  that  the  law  is 
binding  upon  no  one  either  Jew  or  Gentile,  he  might  still 
regard  the  observance  of  the  law  as  advisable,  and  might 
practise  it  without  stultifying  himself  in  any  way,  as  Paul 

i  Gal.  ii.  14. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  205 

himself  practised  it  on  occasion.1  Peter's  inconsistency 
lay  rather  in  the  fact  that  having  declared  that  he  believed 
that  the  Jewish  law  was  not  binding  on  any  one,  even  a 
Jew,  he  acted  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  it  binding  on  every 
one,  even  on  Gentiles.  But  it  was  not  Peter's  inconsist- 
ency alone  that  angered  Paul,  though  his  inconsistency  gave 
point  to  the  rebuke  and  made  it  possible  for  Paul  to  arraign 
him  as  he  did,  —  it  was  above  all  the  fact  that  Peter  had 
violated  the  agreement  reached  at  Jerusalem,  in  entering 
Paul's  missionary  field  and  there  preaching  the  Gospel  of 
circumcision  to  his  Gentile  converts.  It  is  to  be  noticed 
that  Paul  did  not  find  fault  with  Peter  because  he  lived 
as  a  Jew,  but  because  he  compelled  the  Gentiles  to  live  as 
Jews ;  because  he  laid  upon  Paul's  heathen  converts  the 
obligation  to  observe  the  law,  when  their  complete  free- 
dom from  the  law  had  been  expressly  guaranteed  at  Jeru- 
salem by  Peter  himself  as  well  as  by  the  church  in  general. 
But  the  question  arises,  In  what  sense  did  Peter  lay  this 
obligation  upon  Paul's  Gentile  converts ;  how  did  he  com- 
pel them  to  live  as  the  Jews  lived  ?  Are  we  to  understand 
that  he  actually  followed  the  example  of  the  Judaizers  and 
told  the  Gentile  Christians  of  Antioch  that  they  could  not 
be  saved  without  circumcision  ?  2  There  is  no  sign  that  he 
went  so  far  as  this,  nor  can  it  be  supposed  that  he  so 
explicitly  and  wilfully  violated  the  compact  sealed  at 
Jerusalem.  But  in  his  withdrawal  from  association  with 
the  Gentile  Christians  there  was  involved  in  reality  as 
genuine  a  compulsion  as  if  he  had  distinctly  told  them  that 
circumcision  was  necessary  to  salvation ;  for  such  with- 
drawal must  seem  to  mean  nothing  else  under  the  circum- 
stances than  the  declaration  that  they  were  not  clean 
because  they  were  not  observing  the  law,  and  hence  that 
there  rested  upon  them  the  obligation  to  cleanse  themselves 
by  obeying  its  injunction.  In  observing  the  Jewish  law  in 
all  its  strictness,  including  its  prohibition  of  association 

1  Cf .  1  Cor.  ix.  20. 

2  Ritscbl  (Entstehung  der  altkatholischen  Kirche,  Zweite  Auflage,  S.  146) 
maintains  that  Peter  did  this.    In  the  first  edition  of  the  same  work  he  held 
that  it  was  the  decree  of  Acts  xv.  23  sq.,  which  Peter  laid  upon  the  Gentile 
Christians  of  Antioch. 


206  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

with  the  Gentiles,  Peter  acted,  it  is  true,  in  harmony  with 
one  part  of  the  Jewish  compact,  but  at  the  same  time  he 
violated  the  other  part  and  made  it  very  clear  that  the 
compact  could  not  be  kept  in  both  its  terms  under  such 
conditions  as  existed  in  Antioch.  The  truth  is  that  the 
compact  provided  only  for  the  distinct  and  separate  exist- 
ence of  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christianity  and  did  not  con- 
template their  relation  one  to  the  other.  It  was  only  when 
they  came  in  contact  in  Antioch  that  it  was  seen  to  be 
self-contradictory  and  to  involve  either  the  emancipation 
of  Jewish  Christians  from  the  law  or  the  bondage  of  Gen- 
tile Christians  to  it.  And  so  Paul  might  justly  regard 
Peter's  conduct  at  Antioch  not  only  as  an  act  of  self-stulti- 
fication, but  also  as  a  violation  of  the  agreement  reached  at 
Jerusalem,  and  as  such  he  was  entitled  to  resent  it  bitterly. 
Even  had  Peter  not  eaten  with  the  Gentiles  upon  his 
arrival  in  Antioch,  but  held  himself  aloof  from  the  begin- 
ning, he  would  justly  have  incurred  Paul's  resentment; 
for  his  action  would  have  been  a  practical  announcement 
to  the  Gentile  Christians  that  they  must  keep  the  law  if 
they  wished  to  stand  on  the  same  plane  with  him  and  enjoy 
the  benefits  of  association  with  him,  and  would  thus  have 
been  in  reality  a  violation  of  the  spirit  of  the  Jerusalem 
compact.  But  when  he  took  such  action  after  he  had 
been  for  some  time  associating  with  the  Gentiles  and  had 
won  their  personal  friendship  and  affection,  it  was  much 
worse  in  its  consequences.  It  is  no  wonder  that  Paul  took 
him  sharply  to  task  before  all  the  brethren. 

And  yet  it  should  be  said,  in  justification  of  Peter's 
conduct,  that  his  action  was  not  necessarily  due  to  fear  of 
the  Jewish  Christians,  as  Paul  declares.1  It  is  more  likely 
that  he  acted  from  a  sense  of  duty  in  separating  himself 
from  the  Gentiles.  Conscious  as  he  was  that  his  work 
lay  among  the  Jews,  as  Paul's  among  the  heathen,  it  may 
well  be  that  the  messengers  from  James  led  him  to  see 
that  his  influence  among  his  countrymen  would  be  under- 
mined, and  his  power  to  reach  them  destroyed,  if  lie 
showed  himself  in  any  way  careless  in  his  observance  of 

i  Gal.  ii.  12. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  207 

the  law  of  the  Fathers.  He  may  have  realized  as  he  had 
not  at  first  that  he  could  not  live  like  an  apostle  to  the 
Gentiles  and  still  be  a  successful  and  effective  apostle  to 
the  Jews.  And  so,  believing  that  he  had  been  called  to 
evangelize  the  latter  and  not  the  former,  it  may  have 
seemed  to  him  a  sacred  duty  to  do  as  the  brethren  from 
Jerusalem  advised,  even  though  his  action  might  appear 
inconsistent,  and  might  work  harm  to  the  Antiochian 
church. 

The  Antiochian  episode  was  momentous  in  more  ways 
than  one.  It  opened  a  question  which  had  not  been  dis- 
cussed at  Jerusalem :  the  relation  to  each  other  of  Jewish 
and  Gentile  Christians  within  a  community  containing 
both  classes.  The  emissaries  of  James  insisted  that  even 
in  such  communities  Jewish  Christians  must  observe  the 
law  in  all  its  strictness,  but  Paul  called  attention  to  the 
fact  that  such  observance  meant  a  violation  of  the  guaran- 
tee of  Gentile  liberty  which  he  had  secured  at  Jerusalem. 
But  as  the  emissaries  preferred  to  sacrifice  the  liberty  of 
the  Gentiles  rather  than  consent  to  the  neglect  of  the  law 
by  the  Jewish  Christians  of  Antioch,  Paul  went  further 
and  declared,  as  he  had  not  done  at  Jerusalem,  that  their 
insistence  upon  the  observance  of  the  law  by  Jewish 
Christians  meant  in  reality  a  denial  of  the  Gospel  of 
Christ,  and  that  their  Christianity,  instead  of  being  a 
higher  and  better  form  than  the  Christianity  of  the  Gen- 
tiles, was  in  reality  quite  the  opposite,  involving  as  it  did 
dependence  upon  the  law  rather  than  upon  Christ  for  jus- 
tification, and  thus  making  the  death  of  Christ  a  vain 
thing.1  Thus  the  war  was  carried  into  the  camp  of  the 
Jews.  The  Antiochian  episode,  therefore,  did  more  than 
merely  open  the  question  of  the  relation  of  Jewish  and 
Gentile  disciples  to  each  other ;  it  revealed  a  fundamental 
difference  of  principle  between  Paul  and  the  Christians  of 
Jerusalem.  The  breach  between  them  was  thus  widened 
and  the  number  of  Paul's  enemies  doubtless  greatly  in- 
creased. It  may  well  be  indeed  that  the  episode  furnished 
the  occasion  for  the  Judaizers  to  open  their  campaign 

i  Gal.  ii.  21. 


208  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

against  Gentile  Christianity  and  against  Paul  himself. 
Aroused  and  bitterly  enraged  by  what  had  occurred  at 
this  time,  with  their  numbers  increased  and  with  their 
hands  strengthened  by  the  widespread  hostility  to  Paul 
to  which  his  conduct  had  given  rise,  they  probably  began 
at  once  that  propaganda  in  the  churches  of  Galatia  which 
called  forth  his  epistle. 

We  are  not  told  what  effect  Paul's  severe  rebuke,  and 
his  clear  exposition  of  the  meaning  of  the  Gospel,  had 
upon  Peter  and  Barnabas  and  the  Jewish  Christians  of 
Antioch.  It  is  clear  at  least  that  Peter  did  not  yield  and 
associate  again  with  the  Gentiles  as  he  had  been  doing, 
for  Paul  would  certainly  have  mentioned  the  fact  if  he 
had ;  and  it  would  have  been  natural  for  him  to  tell  the 
Galatians  of  it,  if  his  remonstrance  had  proved  effective 
in  the  case  of  Barnabas.  We  shall  probably  be  safe  in 
assuming  that  whatever  was  true  at  a  later  date,  at  the 
time  when  Paul  wrote  his  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  not 
only  Peter,  but  also  Barnabas  and  many  of  the  Jewish 
Christians  of  Antioch,  still  felt  the  influence  of  James,1 
and  that  the  former  cordial  relatipns  between  Jews  and 
Gentiles  within  the  Antiochian  church  were  not  entirely 
restored. 

In  our  consideration  of  the  events  that  took  place 
upon  the  occasion  of  Paul's  visit  to  Jerusalem,  and  of  the 
occurrences  that  followed  at  Antioch,  we  have  confined 
ourselves  to  Paul's  statements  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Gala- 
tians. But  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  Acts  contains  a 
somewhat  elaborate  account  of  the  conference  in  Jeru- 
salem which  differs  in  some  respects  from  that  of  Paul  and 
demands  examination  at  this  point.2  It  has  been  widely 

1  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the  messengers  that  came  from  James 
represented  his  own  position  in  the  matter.    Paul's  words  imply  as  much  as 
that,  and  the  position  taken  by  them  in  Antioch  is  entirely  in  harmony  with 
all  that  we  know  of  James  himself. 

2  Ramsay  (St.  Paul,  the  Traveller  and  Roman  Citizen,  p.  55  sq.),  recogniz- 
ing the  difficulty  of  reconciling  Luke's  account  with  that  of  Paul,  denies  that 
they  refer  to  the  same  event.    But  the  conference  between  Paul  and  tin- church 
of  Jerusalem  recorded  in  Acts  xv.  is  impossible  at  any  later  tinn-  ilnn  (hat 
referred  to  in  Gal.  ii.  1  sq.,  for  after  the  matter  had  been  settled  of    !' 
indicates  in  that  passage,  it  could  not  have  been  canvassed  again  in  any  such 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  209 

claimed  that  the  differences  between  the  two  accounts  are 
so  numerous  and  radical,  that  Acts  xv.  must  be  pronounced 
entirely  unhistorical.  But  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  in  at 
least  two  important  respects  the  accounts  are  in  complete 
agreement ;  in  the  first  place,  according  to  both  of  them  the 
legitimacy  of  Gentile  Christianity  was  recognized  by  the 
church  of  Jerusalem,  and  circumcision  was  not  required  of 
converts  from  the  heathen  world ;  and  in  the  second  place, 
they  both  imply  that  it  was  taken  for  granted  by  the  church 
that  Jewish  Christians  would  continue  to  observe  their 
ancestral  law.  It  should  be  remarked  also,  that  there  is 
nothing  improbable  in  the  supposition  that  Peter  and 
James  made  such  addresses  as  are  ascribed  to  them  in 
Acts  xv.  It  may  be  doubted  whether  all  the  words  that 
are  put  into  Peter's  mouth  were  actually  spoken  by  hirn; 1 
but  that  vss.  8  and  11  fairly  represent  the  position  which 
he  held  at  this  time  is  rendered  exceedingly  probable  by 
his  subsequent  conduct  at  Antioch  and  by  the  words  of 
Paul  in  Gal.  ii.  15  sq.  Upon  his  arrival  in  Antioch  he  acted 
exactly  as  a  man  naturally  would  who  held  the  belief 
expressed  in  Acts  xv.  8  and  11,  and  as  we  have  already 
seen,  his  conduct  there  was  due  not  to  a  change  in 
that  belief,  but  to  the  fear  that  his  association  with  the 
Gentiles  would  make  it  impossible  for  him  to  fulfil  his 
mission  among  the  Jews.  And  so  when  Paul  rebuked  him 
for  his  action,  he  based  his  argument  upon  a  principle  that 
was  apparently  recognized  by  Peter  as  well  as  himself; 
but  it  is  just  that  principle  that  finds  expression  in  Acts 
xv.  11.  Moreover,  not  only  the  address  of  Peter  but  also 
that  of  James  is  genuinely  characteristic.  We  know  from 
Gal.  ii.  9  sq.,  that  James  recognized  the  legitimacy  of 
Gentile  Christianity  as  he  is  represented  as  doing  in  Acts 
xv.  19,  and  the  passage  from  Amos  which  he  quotes  in  vss. 
16  to  18  may  well  have  been  employed  by  him  at  this  time 

way  as  described  in  Acts  xv.  To  find  in  the  ministry  for  the  poor,  referred  to 
in  Gal.  ii.  10,  the  chief  object  of  Paul's  visit  to  Jerusalem,  as  Ramsay  does, 
and  to  make  all  that  goes  before  it  entirely  subordinate  and  unimportant,  is 
to  do  violence  to  the  entire  passage.  It  must  be  insisted  upon  as  certain,  that 
Gal.  ii.  1  sq.  and  Acts  xv.  1  sq.  refer  to  the  same  time. 

1  For  instance,  vs.  9,  and  especially  the  latter  part  of  vg.  10. 
P 


210  THE   APOSTOLIC    AGE 

as  a  justification  of  such  recognition  on  his  part.  For 
such  Old  Testament  prophecies  must  have  had  much  to  do 
with  the  approval  which  the  Jewish  Christians  in  general 
finally  consented  to  give  to  the  evangelization  of  the  Gen- 
tiles. On  the  other  hand,  we  know  from  Gal.  ii.  12  that 
James  was  more  conservative  than  Peter  and  that  he  was 
not  ready  even  some  time  later  to  go  as  far  as  Peter  did 
at  Antioch  and  to  associate  intimately  with  the  uncircum- 
cised.  The  recommendation  which  he  is  represented  as 
making  in  vs.  20  is  therefore  entirely  in  keeping  with  his 
general  tendency.  Finally  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  though 
Paul  says  nothing  of  the  addresses  of  Peter  and  of  James, 
he  does  hint,  as  already  remarked,  at  a  public  as  well  as  a 
private  meeting  in  Jerusalem,1  and  his  silence  respecting 
the  details  of  that  meeting  is  no  argument  against  the 
account  in  Acts.  It  is  clear  from  his  own  words  that  the 
apostles,  or  at  least  James,  Peter,  and  John,  were  more 
ready  than  the  church  as  a  whole  to  approve  his  work 
among  the  Gentiles,  and  it  is  therefore  natural  to  suppose 
that  their  influence  was  exerted  to  induce  the  church  to 
take  the  action  it  did.  That  Paul  and  Barnabas  should 
rehearse  the  great  things  which  God  had  done  among  the 
Gentiles  through  them,2  and  that  they  should  then  leave 
it  to  the  apostles,  who  had  much  greater  influence  in  the 
church  of  Jerusalem  than  they,  to  urge  the  recognition  of 
that  form  of  Christianity  which  God  had  so  signally 
approved,  is  just  what  we  might  have  expected  them  to 
do.  Paul  appeared  in  Jerusalem  to  defend  the  Christi- 
anity of  the  Gentiles,  and  however  conscious  he  was  of  his 
own  independence  and  of  his  divine  call,  it  would  have 
been  the  height  of  unwisdom,  and  would  have  defeated  the 
very  purpose  which  he  had  in  view,  for  him  to  treat  the 
apostles  with  anything  else  than  the  utmost  respect  and 
deference,  or  to  insist,  upon  the  basis  of  his  own  apostle- 
ship,  that  the  church  should  do  as  he  wished  it  to  with- 
out regard  to  the  desires  of  its  own  guides  and  leaders. 
In  fact,  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  the  account  of  the 
proceedings  in  Acts  xv.  6-21  is  in  its  general  features 
i  Gal.  ii.  2.  2  Acts  xv.  4,  12  sq. ;  cf.  Gal.  ii.  2,  7,  9. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  211 

entirely  in  accord  with  the  probabilities  of  the  situation 
as  revealed  in  Gal.  ii.  1-10. 

But  the  same  cannot  be  said  of  vss.  22  sq.  It  is  very 
difficult  to  suppose  that  such  a  decree  as  is  contained  in 
vss.  28  and  29  was  adopted  at  this  time  and  carried  back 
to  Antioch  by  Paul  and  Barnabas  with  representatives  of 
the  church  of  Jerusalem,  as  Luke  records.  For  it  is  to  be 
noticed  that  there  is  no  sign  in  Paul's  epistles  that  he  ever 
put  the  decree  into  force  in  any  of  his  churches,  or  recom- 
mended any  of  his  converts  to  observe  it ;  nor  is  there  any 
sign  that  anything  was  known  about  the  decree  in  the 
churches  to  which  he  wrote.1  It  is  also  a  fact  of  the  ut- 
most significance  that  Paul  distinctly  asserts2  that  those 
who  were  of  repute  in  the  church  of  Jerusalem  imparted 
nothing  to  him,  that  is,  laid  no  additional  requirements 
upon  him ; 3  in  other  words,  he  was  left  entirely  free  by 
them  to  preach  to  the  Gentiles  exactly  as  he  had  been 
preaching.  But  according  to  Acts  xv.  28,  the  Gentiles 
were  not  simply  requested,  but  required  by  the  action  of  the 
apostles  and  elders  in  Jerusalem,  to  abstain  from  the  four 
things  enumerated  in  the  decree.  The  latter  refrain  from 
laying  upon  the  converts  from  the  heathen  the  burden  of 
the  whole  law,  but  abstinence  from  these  four  things  they 
regard  as  "  necessary."  For  Paul,  therefore,  to  acquiesce 
in  this  action  and  to  carry  the  decree  to  the  Antiochian 
church  would  have  been  to  lay  a  burden  upon  the  Gen- 
tiles not  as  great,  to  be  sure,  as  the  Judaizers  would  have 
liked,  but  none  the  less  a  burden,  and  none  the  less  op- 
posed to  his  principle  of  complete  liberty.  It  does  not 
help  the  matter  to  urge  that  Paul  himself  recommended  a 
voluntary  curtailment  of  one's  liberty  for  the  sake  of  the 
weaker  brethren,  as  in  1  Cor.  viii.  and  Gal.  v.  13,  and  that 
therefore  he  might  have  been  willing  to  acquiesce  in  this 
decree  in  order  that  the  Jewish  Christians  might  not  be 
too  much  offended  by  the  lives  of  their  Gentile  brethren  ; 
for  it  is  not  that  a  voluntary  curtailment  of  their  liberty 

1  It  is  significant  that  the  Corinthians  hetray  no  knowledge  of  it  when  they 
.ask  Paul's  advice  in  £jie  matter  of  meats  offered  to  idols  (1  Cor.  viii.  1). 

2  Gal.  ii.  6.  3  e/woi  yap  ol  doKovvres  otdtv 


212  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

is  suggested,  but  that  an  enforced  submission  to  certain 
requirements  is  demanded  by  the  church  of  Jerusalem. 
But  it  is  to  be  remarked  finally,  that  the  decree  contains 
the  same  prohibitions  that  were  laid  upon  strangers  living 
within  the  land  of  the  Jews,  according  to  Lev.  xvii.  and 
xviii.,  and  that  its  formal  enactment  by  the  council  implies 
that  the  disciples  of  Jerusalem  proposed  to  relegate  the 
Gentile  converts  to  the  position  occupied  in  ancient  times 
by  such  strangers,  and  in  more  recent  days  by  the  o-e/Soyue- 
voi,  or  God-fearing  heathen.  In  other  words,  the  decree 
in  the  form  in  which  we  have  it  means  that  the  Gentile 
Christians  were  to  be  treated  as  less  honorable  and  less  pleas- 
ing to  God  than  their  Jewish  brethren,  and  were  to  be  re- 
quired to  treat  the  latter  as  religiously  on  a  higher  plane 
than  themselves.  This  feeling  was  entirely  natural,  and 
was  doubtless  shared  by  James  as  well  as  by  the  majority 
of  the  disciples  of  Jerusalem,  but  Paul  certainly  could  not 
require,  nor  could  he  consent  that  others  should  require, 
his  converts  to  acknowledge  the  religious  superiority  of 
the  Jews  by  the  observance  even  of  the  simplest  require- 
ments of  the  Mosaic  code.  Still  less  could  he  consent  that 
they  should  do  anything  which  would  lead  them  to  think 
that  those  who  observed  the  Jewish  law  were  more  right- 
eous or  pleasing  to  God  than  themselves.  In  view  of  all 
that  has  been  said,  we  are  forced  to  conclude  either  that 
the  decree  was  never  adopted  and  promulgated  by  the 
church  of  Jerusalem,  or  if  it  was,  that  it  was  done  with- 
out Paul's  knowledge  and  consent,  and  hence  not  under 
the  circumstances  recorded  in  Acts  xv.1 

The  question  then  arises,  how  is  the  presence  of  the  de- 
cree in  our  account  to  be  explained  ?  It  is  impossible  to 
suppose  so  pe'culiar  a  document  an  invention  of  the  author 
of  the  Acts.  Some  historic  basis  for  it  must  be  assumed. 


1  As  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  Paul  had  anything  to  do  with  the  adoption 
of  the  decree,  so  it  cannot  he  supposed  that  he  had  anything  to  do  with  its 
promulgation,  and  the  accuracy  of  the  statement  in  Acts  xvi.  4  must  therefore 
he  questioned.  The  statement  was  a  very  natural  one  for  the  author  to  mak.  , 
with  the  understanding  he  had  of  Paul's  relation  to  the  decree,  and  it  is  not 
necessary  to  suppose  that  he  derived  it  from  his  sources  any  more  than  xvi.  5, 
which  goes  with  it. 


THE  WORK   OF   PAUL  213 

Such  a  basis  may  be  found  either  in  the  address  of  James, 
recorded  in  Acts  xv.  13-21,  or  in  the  actual  adoption  and 
promulgation  of  the  decree  at  some  other  time  than  that 
designated  by  our  author.  So  far  as  the  former  alterna- 
tive is  concerned,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  it  is  not  at  all 
impossible  that  during  the  conference  James  may  have 
suggested  that  the  Gentile  converts  be  requested  to  ab- 
stain from  practices  which  were  calculated  particularly  to 
offend  the  prejudices  of  the  Jews,  who  had  their  syna- 
gogues in  every  city,  and  heard  the  law  of  Moses  read 
every  Sabbath.1  Nor  is  it  necessary  to  suppose  that  Paul 
must  have  taken  exception  to  such  a  request.  So  long  as 
it  involved  nothing  more  than  the  expression  of  a  desire 
that  the  Gentile  Christians  might  do  nothing  in  the  exer- 
cise of  their  liberty  to  offend  their  Jewish  brethren  unnec- 
essarily, Paul  could  have  no  fault  to  find  with  it ;  for  he 
himself  exhorts  his  converts  to  give  no  occasion  for  stum- 
bling either  to  Jews  or  to  Greeks.2  If  then  it  be  assumed 
that  James  expressed  the  hope  that  the  Gentiles  would 
voluntarily  show  some  consideration  for  the  feelings  of 
their  Jewish  brethren,  it  is  not  inconceivable  that  the 
expression  of  that  hope  which  was  contained  in  the  origi- 
nal record  of  his  speech,  may  have  led  the  author  of  the 
Acts  to  compose  and  append  the  epistle  with  its  formal 
decree  as  we  find  it  in  vss.  23  sq.,  or  to  give  the  form  of  an 
official  enactment  to  a  mere  request  made  by  the  church  in 
accordance  with  the  suggestion  of  James.3 

But  the  second  alternative  referred  to  above,  that  the 
decree  was  actually  adopted  and  promulgated  by  the 
church  of  Jerusalem  at  some  other  time  than  that  desig- 
nated by  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Acts,  seems  much 
more  probable  than  the  one  just  considered.4  That  the 
author  of  the  Acts,  coming  into  possession  of  a  document 

i  Acts  xv.  21.  2  i  Cor.  x.  32. 

8  Attention  has  been  frequently  called  to  the  stylistic  resemblance  between 
the  opening  of  the  epistle  in  vss.  23  and  24,  and  the  prologue  of  Luke's  Gospel. 

4  This  suggestion  was  originally  made  by  Ritschl  in  the  first  edition  of  his 
Entstehuny  der  aUkatholischen  Kirche,  and  has  been  adopted  by  Weizsacker 
and  others,  though  abandoned  by  Ritschl  himself  in  the  second  edition  of  his 
work. 


214  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

containing  such  a  decree,  and  being  ignorant  of  its  exact 
date  and  of  the  circumstances  under  which  it  had  its  rise, 
should  have  inserted  it  in  his  work  in  what  seemed  to  him 
the  most  appropriate  place,  is  what  we  should  expect  in 
view  of  his  treatment  of  his  sources  in  the  composition  of 
the  third  Gospel.  Moreover,  there  are  several  indications 
that  he  made  use  of  more  than  one  authority,  or  that  he 
considerably  altered  and  expanded  the  authority  which  he 
followed  in  writing  the  very  chapter  with  which  we 
are  dealing.  The  record  as  we  have  it  contains  difficul- 
ties which  can  be  satisfactorily  explained  on  no  other 
assumption.1  There  is,  therefore,  upon  the  face  of  it 
nothing  improbable  in  the  supposition  that  the  decree 
existed  in  a  separate  document  and  was  appended  by  the 
author  to  his  account  of  the  conference.2 

So  far  as  the  time  is  concerned  at  which  the  decree  of 
vss.  28  and  29  was  adopted,  it  cannot  have  been  before  the 
meeting  described  in  Acts  xv.  and  Gal.  ii. ;  for  the  legiti- 
macy of  Gentile  Christianity  which  it  presupposes  was 
still  an  open  question  when  that  meeting  began.  On  the 
other  hand,  there  is  nothing  in  Paul's  account  of  his  con- 
troversy with  Peter3  to  suggest  that  the  decree  was  en- 

1  Compare  vs.  1  with  vs.  5,  and  vs.  4  with  vs.  12.    Compare  also  vss.  4,  12, 
and  22,  where  the  whole  church  is  referred  to,  with  vss.  6  and  23,  where  only 
the  apostles  and  elders  are  mentioned.    It  is  to  be  noticed  also  that  auroi)s  in 
vs.  5,  which  evidently  refers  to  the  Gentiles,  has  no  grammatical  antecedent. 
It  is  not  impossible  that  Acts  xi.  27-30  formed  originally  the  beginning  of  the 
account  with  which  we  are  now  concerned,  and  that  it  was  separated  from  its 
context,  not  only  because  it  referred  to  a  famine  which  the  author  identified 
with  the  famine  that  took  place  in  the  early  part  of  Claudius'  reign,  some 
years  before  the  time  at  which  he  understood  the  council  of  Jerusalem  to  have 
been  held,  but  also  because  it  assigned  a  purpose  to  the  visit  described  in  chap, 
xv.  which  did  not  seem  to  accord  well  with  the  matter  actually  considered  at 
that  meeting.     (But  see  p.  171,  above.)     If  such  a  displacement  were  made, 
the  author  would  naturally  supply  some  such  introduction  to  Acts  xv.  as  we 
actually  find  in  vss.  1  and  2.    For  various  analyses  of  the  sources  of  Acts  xv. 
see  especially  J.  Weiss  (in  the  Theologische  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1893,  S. 
519  sq.)  ;   Voelter  (Komposition  der  paulinischen  Hauptbriefe,  S.  133  sq.) ; 
Spitta  (Apostelgesch.,  S.  179  sq.)  ;    Jiingst  (Quellen  der  Apostelgeschichte, 
S.  134  sq.). 

2  It  is  quite  possible  that  the  church  of  Jerusalem  actually  sent  some  such 
letter  as  is  given  in  vss.  22-27,  and  that  only  vss.  28  and  29  are  added.    Some 
letter  (and  perhaps  messengers)  we  might  expect  them  to  send,  and  it  may 
well  have  been  of  this  sort.    The  addition,  then,  of  vss.  28  and  29  would  be  all 
the  easier  to  explain. 

8  Gal.  ii.  11  sq. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  215 

acted  by  the  church  of  Jerusalem  before  the  latter  visited 
Antioch.  Weizsacker  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  adoption 
of  the  decree  took  place  after  the  Antiochian  occurrence 
and  as  a  result  of  it.  But  it  seems  hardly  calculated  to 
meet  the  exigencies  of  the  situation  which  existed  after 
that  time,  when  the  relations  between  Gentile  Christianity 
and  the  Mother  Church  must  have  been  greatly  strained. 
It  is  less  thoroughgoing  than  we  should  expect  it  to  be, 
if  promulgated  after  the  open  break  had  occurred.  It  says 
nothing  whatever  about  the  conduct  of  Jewish  Christians, 
nor  does  it  warn  the  Gentiles  that  they  must  not  expect 
or  desire  their  Jewish  brethren  to  associate  intimately 
with  them,  as  they  had  been  doing  at  Antioch.  It  is  to 
be  noticed  that  the  abstinence  of  the  Gentiles  from  the 
four  things  prohibited  in  the  decree  did  not  make  it  lawful 
for  a  Jew  to  meet  them  on  terms  of  equality,  and  we  can- 
not suppose  that  either  James  or  the  church  of  Jerusalem 
was  ready  to  sanction  even  the  slightest  neglect  of  the 
law  on  the  part  of  their  countrymen.1  The  decree  in  fact 
betrays  no  apprehension  of  the  true  difficulties  of  such  a 
situation  as  existed  in  Antioch,  and  hence  bears  every 
appearance  of  having  been  drawn  up  before  the  trouble 
occurred  there.  If  any  action  was  taken  by  the  Mother 
Church  after  that  time,  it  would  naturally  look  either 
toward  the  widening  and  deepening  of  the  chasm  between 
the  Jewish  and  Gentile  wings  of  the  church,  or  toward 
the  construction  of  some  bridge  across  the  chasm,  accord- 
ing as  it  was  prompted  by  the  more  bitter  or  by  the  more 
conciliatory  spirits.  But  the  decree  of  Jerusalem  answers 
neither  of  these  purposes.  It  seems  best  then  to  suppose 
that  it  was  adopted  shortly  after  Paul  left  Jerusalem,  and 
after  Peter,  too,  had  taken  his  departure,  and  that  it  was 
the  result  of  farther  deliberation  in  the  church  of  Jerusa- 
lem upon  the  subject  which  had  been  discussed  at  the 
council.  It  may  have  seemed  to  James  and  to  the  major- 
ity  of  the  church  after  they  had  considered  the  matter 
more  fully,  that  the  guarantee  of  complete  Gentile  liberty, 
which  had  been  given  at  that  time,  threatened  the  prerog- 

1  Cf .  Acts  xxi.  31  sq. 


216  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE 

atives  of  the  chosen  people,  and  they  may  have  thought 
that  the  danger  might  be  avoided,  without  intrenching 
upon  the  Gentiles'  freedom  from  the  Jewish  law,  if  the 
latter  were  required  to  show  some  respect  for  that  law, 
such  respect  in  fact  as  had  been  of  old  demanded  of  stran- 
gers dwelling  within  the  land  of  Israel.  It  is  possible, 
then,  that  the  emissaries  from  James  came  to  Antioch,1  not 
because  they  had  heard  that  Peter  was  eating  with  the 
Gentiles,  and  wished  to  call  him  to  account  for  his  con- 
duct, but  as  the  bearers  of  the  decree  to  the  Antiochian 
church. 

It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  this  view  as  to  the  time  of 
the  adoption  of  the  decree  affords  a  satisfactory  and  much 
needed  explanation  of  the  conduct  of  Barnabas  to  which 
Paul  refers  in  Gal.  ii.  13.  It  is  not  difficult  to  understand 
why  Peter  should  have  been  influenced  by  the  arguments 
of  the  messengers  from  Jerusalem,  for  he  was  the  apostle 
of  the  circumcision,  whose  work  was  to  lie  chiefly  among 
the  Jews.  But  that  Barnabas,  Paul's  fellow-apostle  to  the 
heathen,  whose  right  to  work  among  the  Gentiles  had  been 
recognized  in  Jerusalem,  just  as  Paul's  had  been,  after  liv- 
ing for  some  years  in  intimate  fellowship  with  his  Gentile 
converts,  should  have  drawn  back  and  separated  himself 
from  them  is  very  strange.  The  only  plausible  explana- 
tion of  his  conduct  is  that  a  new  idea  as  to  their  true 
position  within  the  church  had  presented  itself  to  him. 
He  may  not  have  been  in  full  sympathy  with  Paul's  doc- 
trine of  the  Christian's  complete  liberty  from  all  law  of 
whatever  kind,  and  he  may  originally  have  recognized 
Gentile  converts  as  brethren  only  under  the  compulsion 
of  the  same  kind  of  divine  evidence  as  convinced  the 
Christians  of  Jerusalem.  But  having  become  satisfied  of 
their  emancipation  from  the  Jewish  law,  it  perhaps  did  not 
occur  to  him  that  it  was  possible  still  to  conserve  the 
dignity  of  that  law,  however  much  he  may  have  desired 
to  do  so,  without  denying  their  Christianity,  which  he 
could  not  do,  and  did  not  wish  to  do.  The  decree  may 
have  suggested  to  him  for  the  first  time  the  true  way  to 

i  Gal.  ii,  12. 


THE  WORK  OF  PAUL  217 

meet  the  difficulty,  and  consequently  the  true  way  to  pre- 
serve the  honor  of  Judaism  while  recognizing  the  Chris- 
tianity of  the  Gentiles. 

Of  the  events  that  occurred  during  the  weeks  and 
months  immediately  succeeding  the  controversy  between 
Paul  and  Peter  at  Antioch,  we  have  no  explicit  informa- 
tion. Paul's  remonstrance  apparently  effected  no  change 
in  the  conduct  of  Peter  and  Barnabas,1  and  it  must  have 
been  some  time  at  any  rate  before  cordial  relations  were  re- 
stored between  the  Jewish  and  Gentile  wings  of  the  Anti- 
ochian  church.  Meanwhile  the  Judaizers,  whose  demands 
Paul  had  successfully  resisted  at  Jerusalem,  determined  to 
carry  the  war  against  him,  and  against  the  Gentile  Chris- 
tianity for  which  he  stood,  into  his  own  territory.  Some 
of  them  may  have  begun  their  Jewish  propaganda  imme- 
diately after  the  conference,  but  it  is  probable  that  they 
received  their  chief  impulse  from  the  occurrence  at  Antioch. 
Perceiving,  in  the  light  of  that  event,  that  the  Gospel  which 
Paul  preached  meant  inevitably  not  simply  the  rise  of  a 
free  Gentile  church  in  which  the  law  should  be  entirely 
disregarded,  but  also  the  wide  and  increasing  neglect  of 
that  law  on  the  part  of  the  Jews  themselves,  they  felt 
that  the  only  way  to  stem  the  rising  tide  of  apostasy  was 
to  insist  upon  the  circumcision  of  the  Gentiles.  They 
looked  upon  it  as  a  life  and  death  matter.  If  the  Gentiles 
did  not  become  Jews,  the  Jews  would  become  Gentiles,  and 
regard  for  the  law  of  Moses  would  entirely  disappear  within 
the  Christian  church  outside  of  Palestine,  and  Christ  would 
thus  become  a  minister  of  sin  to  an  ever-increasing  multi- 
tude of  the  dispersion.2  It  is  hardly  likely  that  the  Juda- 
izers would  have  exhibited  such  zeal,  and  would  have 
proved  themselves  so  bitterly  and  relentlessly  hostile  to 
Paul  as  they  did,  out  of  mere  opposition  to  Gentile  Chris- 
tianity as  such,  and  with  the  sole  desire  to  make  proselytes 
of  Paul's  converts.  It  was  doubtless  the  fear  that  the 
Christians  of  Jewish  birth  would  apostatize  under  the 
influence  of  their  Gentile  brethren  that  did  more  than  any- 
thing else  to  add  fuel  to  the  flame  of  their  zeal,  and  that 

i  See  p.  208,  above.  2  Gal.  ii.  17. 


218  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

gave  its  peculiar  intensity  and  bitterness  to  their  enmity 
for  Paul.  Not  that  he  preached  the  Gospel  to  the  Gen- 
tiles, but  that  he  taught  the  Jews  to  disregard  their  law, 
was  the  accusation  brought  against  him  later  at  Jerusalem,1 
and  though  the  zealots  that  found  fault  with  him  there  may 
not  have  been  in  full  sympathy  with  the  Judaizers  who 
caused  him  so  much  trouble  in  his  missionary  work,  they 
doubtless  voiced  in  their  complaint  that  which  was  his  most 
heinous  offence,  not  in  their  eyes  alone,  but  in  the  eyes  of 
all  his  opponents.  In  Gal.  vi.  12  sq.,  Paul  declares  that 
the  Judaizers  were  endeavoring  to  force  circumcision  upon 
the  Gentile  converts,  not  in  order  that  the  law  might  be 
observed  by  the  latter,  but  in  order  that  they  might  them- 
selves escape  persecution  from  unbelieving  Israel.  Paul's 
words,  both  here  and  in  Gal  v.  11,  imply  that  the  persecu- 
tion which  the  Judaizers  wished  to  escape  was  due,  not 
chiefly  to  the  fact  that  they  preached  Christ,  but  to  the  fact 
that  they  preached  a  religion  which  the  Jews  believed  was 
calculated  to  undermine  and  destroy  the  influence  of  the 
law,  and  which  was  actually  having  that  very  effect  among 
the  Israelites  of  the  dispersion.  It  was  not  enough  to 
exhibit  their  zeal  in  the  work  of  proselytism,2  they  must, 
above  all,  counteract  this  fatal  tendency  if  they  would 
relieve  Christ  from  the  accusation  of  inciting  to  sin,3  and 
themselves  from  persecution  as  promoters  of  apostasy. 

And  so  Judaizers  appeared  at  an  early  day  in  Galatia, 
where  Paul  and  Barnabas  had  preached  some  time  before, 
and  with  an  entire  disregard  for  the  compact  concluded  at 
Jerusalem  and  for  the  official  recognition  which  Gentile 
Christianity  had  received  there,  they  announced  to  the  Gala- 
tian  converts  that  unless  they  became  members  of  the  house- 
hold of  Israel  by  receiving  circumcision  and  observing  the 
law  of  Moses,  their  faith  in  Christ  would  avail  them  nothing, 
and  they  would  be  shut  out  as  aliens  from  the  enjoyment 
of  the  blessings  which  had  been  promised  by  God  only  to 
the  children  of  Abraham.4  The  arguments  which  the 
Judaizers  were  able  to  employ  in  support  of  their  position 

1  Acts  xxi.  25.  8  Gal.  ii.  17. 

2  Gal.  vi.  13.  4  Gal.  iii.  7,  14,  16,  29,  etc. 


THE   WOKK  OF   PAUL  219 

were  very  plausible.  They  doubtless  emphasized  the  fact 
that  Jesus  was  a  Jew,  and  that  he  was  the  Jewish  Messiah 
promised  in  the  Scriptures,  as  Paul  himself  had  taught 
them,  and  that  consequently  the  blessings  which  he  brought 
were  for  his  own  people,  and  for  them  alone.1  In  support 
of  this  conclusion,  which  constituted  their  main  point,  they 
evidently  appealed  to  God's  covenant  with  Abraham,2  and 
to  the  divine  law  given  through  Moses,3  asserting  that  that 
law  was  still  binding,  and  without  doubt  confirming  the 
assertion  by  calling  attention  to  the  fact  that  not  only 
Christ  himself,  but  also  all  his  apostles,  observed  the  law 
in  all  its  parts.4 

But  they  not  only  urged  positive  arguments  in  support 
of  their  position,  they  also  attacked  Paul,  to  whom  the 
Galatians  owed  their  belief  that  salvation  is  through  faith 
in  Christ  and  not  by  works  of  the  law,  insisting  that  he 
was  not  a  true  apostle,  that  he  had  never  seen  Christ  and 
received  a  commission  from  him  as  the  Twelve  had,  and 
that  consequently  his  Gospel  was  not  from  God  but  from 
man,  and  had  no  independent  authority.5  Moreover,  they 
declared  that  it  was  not  simply  a  human  Gospel  but  a  false 
Gospel,6  because  it  did  not  agree  with  the  Gospel  of  the 
Twelve  Apostles,  who  had  been  called  and  commissioned 
by  Christ,  and  who  not  only  observed  the  law  themselves, 
but  also  taught  that  its  observance  was  an  indispensable 
condition  of  salvation.7  Paul  was  in  reality,  therefore,  not 
a  friend  to  the  Galatians  as  he  had  seemed  to  be,  but  an 
enemy,  because  he  had  led  them  away  from  the  true  path 
of  life.8  But  the  Judaizers  went  even  further  than  this, 
and  attacked  Paul's  honesty  of  purpose,  accusing  him  of 
double  dealing,  in  that  he  preached  circumcision  when  he 
was  among  those  that  preferred  that  kind  of  doctrine,9  and 
uncircumcision  when  among  those  to  whom  a  Gospel  of 
liberty  was  most  acceptable.  In  other  words,  they  asserted 
that  his  sole  aim  was  to  please  men,  to  win  their  approval 
and  applause,  and  to  gain  a  following;  and  that  conse- 

1  Cf.  Gal.  iii.  7  sq.         *  Cf.  Gal.  iii.  6.      '  Cf.  Paul's  argument  in  Gal.  ii.  6  sq. 

2  Gal.  iii.  6  sq.,  15  sq.    5  Cf.  Gal.  i.  8  Gal.  iv.  16. 

3  Gal,  iii,  17.  «  Cf .  Gal.  i.  6  sq.    »  Cf.  Gal.  v.  11. 


220  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

quently  he  suited  his  preaching  to  the  tastes  of  those  whom 
he  addressed  without  any  regard  to  the  real  truth.1  It  is 
not  surprising  that  with  such  arguments  and  calumnies  as 
these  the  Judaizers  should  have  succeeded  in  unsettling 
the  minds  of  the  newly  converted  Galatians  and  winning 
many  of  them  over  to  their  side.  Christianity  had  come  to 
the  Galatians  through  the  synagogue  ;  they  had  first  heard 
it  from  the  lips  of  native  Jews  ;  and  they  had  learned  from 
Paul  himself  to  find  in  the  Scriptures  those  prophecies 
which  pointed  forward  to  the  Messiah  Jesus  whom  he 
preached.  There  seemed  good  ground,  therefore,  for  the 
assertion  that  Christianity  was  only  for  the  Jews  and  for 
those  of  the  Gentiles  who  should  attach  themselves  as 
proselytes  to  the  family  of  Israel.  Paul's  explanation  of 
the  method  by  which  the  Christian  believer  is  released 
from  all  obligation  to  observe  the  law  was  at  best  difficult 
to  understand,  and  the  full  appreciation  of  it  presupposed 
a  depth  and  maturity  of  spiritual  experience  which  com- 
paratively few  of  the  Galatians  could  as  yet  have  attained. 
And  so  when  the  Judaizers  asked  them  if  Paul  had  based 
his  Gospel  of  liberty  upon  distinct  and  unequivocal  utter- 
ances of  Christ,  or  if  he  had  appealed  to  Christ's  chosen 
apostles  in  support  of  the  radical  innovation  which  he  had 
introduced  among  them,  and  they  were  unable  to  say  that 
he  had,  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  they  should  begin 
to  question  whether  Paul  really  was  all  that  they  had  sup- 
posed him  to  be,  and  whether  he  had  not  actually  deceived 
them  in  preaching  as  he  had.  But  whatever  the  exact 
course  pursued  by  the  Judaizers,  they  had  evidently  had 
considerable  success  in  the  Galatian  churches  before  Paul 
wrote  his  epistle.2  Some,  and  apparently  the  majority,  of 
those  whom  he  addressed  were  already  beginning  to  observe 
the  Jewish  ceremonial  law  at  least  in  part ; 3  they  were  fall- 
ing away  from  the  grace  of  Christ  and  were  attempting  to 
secure  justification  by  works  of  the  law;4  though  they  had 
begun  in  the  Spirit,  they  were  now  striving  to  perfect  them- 
selves in  the  flesh  ; 6  and  though  they  had  originally  received 

i  Of.  Gal.  i.  10.  2  cf.  Gal.  iii.  1,  v.  7.  8  Gal.  iv.  10. 

*  Gal.  i.  6,  iv.  11),  v.  4,  7.  8  Gal.  iii.  3. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL 

Paul  himself  as  an  angel  of  God,  they  were  now  regarding 
him  as  an  enemy.1  But  the  case  was  not  hopeless.  The 
success  of  the  Judaizers  was  not  yet  complete.  The  Gala- 
tian  Christians,  or  at  any  rate  many  of  them,  had  not  yet 
received  circumcision,2  and  Paul  had  reason  to  believe  that 
he  might  yet  stem  the  tide;  might  yet  win  back  the  alle- 
giance of  those  who  had  been  alienated  from  him  and  con- 
vince them  of  the  truth  of  the  Gospel  which  he  had 
preached  among  them.3 

With  this  end  in  view,  he  wrote  them  a  letter,  fiery, 
impassioned,  polemic ;  at  one  moment  rebuking  them 
sharply  for  their  fickleness,  at  another  expressing  confi- 
dence in  their  continued  loyalty  and  faithfulness ;  severe 
and  at  times  even  bitter  in  denouncing  his  opponents,4  and 
not  without  heat  in  repudiating  their  calumnies  and  in 
vindicating  his  own  character  and  prerogatives.5  From 
beginning  to  end  the  letter  bears  the  stamp  of  Paul's  own 
personality ;  and  whether  he  attacks  his  enemies  or  defends 
himself,  whether  he  discusses  doctrine  or  urges  holy  living, 
he  has  constantly  in  mind  the  exigencies  of  the  situation 
with  which  he  is  confronted,  and  everything  he  says  has 
direct  and  sole  reference  to  that  situation.  The  epistle  is 
both  doctrinally  and  historically  of  the  very  greatest  value, 
and  yet  it  must  be  constantly  borne  in  mind  that  it  was 
intended  neither  as  a  history  nor  as  a  treatise  on  theology, 
but  solely  as  a  defence  of  its  author  and  of  his  Gospel 
against  a  specific  attack  conducted  along  specific  lines. 

In  the  very  first  sentence  of  the  epistle  Paul  meets  the 
assault  upon  his  own  apostleship  by  asserting  that  he  is  an 
"  apostle  not  from  men,  neither  through  man,  but  through 
Jesus  Christ  and  God  the  Father  "  ;  and  a  little  farther  on 
he  declares  that  the  Gospel  which  he  preached  was  received 
by  him  not  from  man,  but  through  a  direct  revelation  of 
Christ.6  He  then  undertakes  to  demonstrate  the  truth  of 
his  assertion  by  a  rapid  sketch  of  his  career,  calling  atten- 
tion to  the  great  zeal  with  which  he  had  practised  the 

1  Gal.  iv.  16.  4  Cf.  Gal.  i.  8,  v.  12,  vi.  12  sq. 

2  Gal.  iv.  21,  v.  2,  vi.  13.  5  Cf.  Gal.  ii.  6. 

3  Cf .  Gal.  iv.  11,  v.  10,  13,  vi.  10,  18.  «  Gal.  i.  11,  12. 


222  THE  APOSTOLIC    AGE 

Jewish  religion  and  the  bitterness  with  which  he  had 
persecuted  the  church,  in  order  to  show  that  his  conver- 
sion was  no  ordinary  event,  but  that  it  could  be  accounted 
for  only  by  the  direct  interposition  of  God,  who  had  called 
him  by  his  grace  and  had  revealed  his  Son  in  him,  and 
that  it  indicated  that  God  had  some  special  purpose  to 
accomplish  through  him.  That  purpose  Paul  asserts  to 
have  been  the  evangelization  of  the  Gentiles,1  and  his 
Gospel  of  the  uncircumcision  he  thus  bases  immediately 
upon  a  commission  received  from  God  himself.  To  sub- 
stantiate still  further  the  truth  of  his  assertion,  that  he 
had  received  his  Gospel  from  God  and  not  from  man, 
he  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  he  did  not  confer  with 
any  one  after  his  conversion,  nor  go  up  to  Jerusalem  to 
see  the  apostles,  until  three  years  later,  when  he  had 
already  been  engaged  for  some  time  in  the  evangelistic 
work  to  which  he  had  been  called.  Even  then  he  spent 
only  two  weeks  in  Jerusalem  and  saw  only  Peter  and 
James,  and  during  the  next  eleven  years  he  carried  on  his 
missionary  work  without  once  coming  into  contact  with 
the  Christians  of  Judea.  Thus  he  demonstrates  conclu- 
sively his  independence  of  the  original  apostles  and  of  the 
church  of  Jerusalem.  But  it  was  not  enough  for  him  to 
establish  his  independence ;  he  must  show  that  his  inde- 
pendence had  not  led  him  astray.  For  this  purpose  he 
gives  an  account  of  the  conference  at  which  his  Gospel 
received  official  approval  and  he  and  Barnabas  the  right 
hand  of  fellowship,  that  they  should  continue  to  carry  on 
their  work  among  the  Gentiles  just  as  they  had  been  doing 
in  the  past.  This  might  have  sufficed  to  refute  the  charges 
of  his  enemies,  but  Paul  relates  also  the  occurrence  that 
took  place  afterward  at  Antioch,  in  order  to  show  that 
Peter,  the  great  apostle  to  the  Jews,  had  not  simply 
recognized  the  legitimacy  of  Gentile  Christianity  at  Jeru- 
salem, and  acknowledged  Paul's  call  to  evangelize  the 
heathen,  but  that  he  had  even  gone  so  far  as  to  disregard 
the  Jewish  law  himself,  and  live  like  a  Gentile  with  the 
Gentile  Christians  of  Antioch.  To  be  sure,  he  had  drawn 

i  Gal.  i.  16. 


THE  WORK  OF   PAUL  223 

back  again  after  a  time,  and  separated  himself  from  the 
uncircumcised,  but  that  was  due  to  fear,  not  principle,  and 
his  true  belief  as  to  the  Christian's  relation  to  the  law 
was  revealed  by  the  course  he  pursued  before  he  was 
called  to  account  by  the  emissaries  from  Jerusalem.  Thus 
Paul  triumphantly  refutes  all  the  accusations  of  his  adver- 
saries, not  only  demonstrating  his  independence  as  an 
apostle  called  and  commissioned  directly  by  God,  but  also 
proving  that  the  Christianity  which  he  preached  among 
the  Gentiles  had  received  ample  recognition  from  the 
older  apostles,  whom  the  Judaizers  had  claimed  as  their 
authority  for  declaring  his  Gospel  false  and  pernicious. 

But  Paul  does  not  rest  with  this  vindication  of  himself. 
He  proceeds  to  restate,  for  the  benefit  of  his  Galatian 
readers,  the  Gospel  which  he  had  preached  among  them 
and  the  grounds  upon  which  it  was  based.  They  evi- 
dently needed  instruction  upon  the  subject,  and  Paul 
devotes  a  large  part  of  his  epistle  to  it.  He  first  summa- 
rizes briefly  his  argument  with  Peter,  in  which  he  had 
clearly  stated  his  fundamental  principles,  and  had  clinched 
the  matter  by  calling  attention  to  the  fact  that  Christ's 
death  was  all  for  naught,  if  righteousness  were  to  be 
attained  through  the  law.1  He  then  turns  directly  to  the 
Galatians,  and  after  reminding  them  that  it  was  Christ 
crucified  who  had  been  plainly  and  openly  preached  to 
them,  he  appeals  to  their  own  experience  as  a  testimony 
to  the  truth  of  the  Gospel  of  liberty  which  they  had 
heard  from  him.  He  reminds  them  that  they  had  received 
the  Spirit,  and  that  the  works  of  the  Spirit  had  been 
wrought  among  them,  even  though  they  were  Gentiless 
and  though  they  had  had  no  thought  of  receiving  circum- 
cision and  observing  the  Jewish  law.  Why,  then,  did  they 
turn  to  the  law  now,  when  it  had  been  proved  unnecessary 
by  their  own  Christian  experience?  The  argument  was 
similar  to  that  which  had  been  employed  at  Jerusalem 
with  such  good  effect.  God  himself  had  borne  witness  in 
the  lives  of  the  Gentiles  to  the  truth  of  the  Gospel  which 
Paul  preached.  But  Paul  appeals  to  the  experience  not 

i  Gal.  ii.  21. 


224  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

of  his  Gentile  readers  alone,  but  also  of  the  great  Abra- 
ham, the  father  of  the  Hebrew  race,  upon  God's  covenant 
with  whom  the  Jews  based  their  claim  to  be  the  chosen 
people  of  Jehovah.  Long  before  the  law  was  given,  Abra* 
ham  was  justified  because  he  believed  God,  and  the  cove* 
nant  which  God  made  with  him  and  with  his  children  was 
conditioned  not  upon  works,  but  upon  faith,  so  that  all 
that  have  Abraham's  faith  are. truly  his  sons.  The  fact  that 
a  law  was  given  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  later  could 
not  disannul  God's  covenant.  The  promised  inheritance, 
which  had  been  expressly  conditioned  upon  faith  alone, 
could  not  now  be  conditioned  upon  the  observance  of  a 
law.  The  law,  in  fact,  was  not  given  with  any  such  pur- 
pose ;  it  was  intended  solely  as  a  tutor  to  reveal  sin  and 
thus  lead  men  to  Christ.  It  has,  therefore,  only  a  tempo- 
rary purpose  to  serve,  and  as  soon  as  it  has  accomplished 
that,  it  passes  away.  Christ  thus  becomes  the  end  of  the 
law  to  those  who  believe  in  him,  and  redeems  them  from 
the  law  whose  curse  they  have  incurred  by  their  inability 
to  keep  it.  Redeemed  from  it,  they  are  henceforth  entirely 
free  from  its  control ;  they  are  no  longer  bond-servants, 
but  sons,  sons  and  heirs  of  God,  because  bound  to  Christ 
by  faith  and  possessed  of  his  Spirit.1  After  elaborating 
his  argument  at  considerable  length,  Paul  appeals  finally 
to  the  Scripture  story  of  Sarah  and  Hagar,  which  he  calls 
an  allegory,  and  in  which  he  finds  a  prophecy  of  the  bond- 
age of  unbelieving  Israel,  and  of  the  liberty  of  believers 
in  Christ,  and  a  promise  that  not  the  former,  who  are 
bound  to  the  law,  but  the  latter,  who  are  freed  from  it, 
shall  enjoy  the  inheritance. 

Before  closing  his  epistle,  he  warns  his  .readers  2  against 
regarding  their  freedom  as  a  license  to  sin;  reminding 
them  that  the  true  Christian  has  crucified  the  flesh  with 
its  passions  and  lusts,  that  the  Christian  life  is  a  life  not 
in  the  flesh  but  in  the  Spirit,  and  that  only  he  who  has 
the  Spirit  is  freed  from  the  law;  so  that  liberty  means  only 
liberty  to  bring  forth  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit.  It  is  clear 
that  the  same  objection  was  brought  against  Paul's  Gos- 
i  Gal.  iii.  26,  29,  iv.  f>,  7.  2  Gal.  v.  13  sq. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  225 

pel  of  liberty  in  Galatia  as  elsewhere.  He  was  accused 
of  making  Christ  a  minister  of  sin  and  of  breaking  down 
all  the  safeguards  of  holiness.1  He  met  the  accusation 
by  an  appeal  to  that  principle  which  was  fundamental  in 
his  Christian  system,  and  which  he  had  evidently  impressed 
upon  the  Galatians  in  the  very  beginning,2  that  the  Chris- 
tian life  is  not  a  human  but  a  divine  life,  that  it  is  the  life 
of  Christ  in  the  believer.  That  he  did  not  elaborate  this 
doctrine  as  fully  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  as  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans,  was  due  doubtless  to  the  fact  that 
he  had  sufficiently  dwelt  upon  it  when  he  was  with  the 
Galatians.  A  large  part  of  his  epistle  to  them  presup- 
poses it,  and  can  be  fully  understood  only  in  the  light  of  it. 

The  letter  closes  with  a  passage  written  by  Paul's 
own  hand.3  He  seems  to  have  finished  dictating  what  he 
had  to  say,  and  then  suddenly  to  have  had  a  rush  of  per- 
sonal feeling  which  led  him  to  pick  up  his  pen  for  a  part- 
ing word  of  attack  and  defence.  After  denouncing  the 
Judaizers  once  more,  and  accusing  them  of  selfish  and 
dishonest  motives,  he  reasserts  the  Gospel  of  liberty  and 
closes  with  a  solemn  adjuration  to  his  enemies  to  trouble 
him  no  more,  for  he  bears  upon  his  body  the  marks  of 
Jesus :  the  stripes  and  the  blows  which  he  has  suffered 
as  a  missionary  of  the  cross.  They  are  a  sufficient  testi- 
mony to  his  apostleship  and  a  sufficient  refutation  of  all 
the  calumnies  of  his  adversaries. 

Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  was  addressed  primarily 
to  his  Gentile  converts,  who  were  evidently  considerably 
in  the  majority  in  the  churches  of  Galatia.  At  the  same 
time  the  Gospel  which  he  presents  so  clearly  was  a  Gos- 
pel for  Jewish  as  well  as  Gentile  Christians,  and  that  there 
were  at  least  some  of  the  former  in  the  churches  to  which 
he  wrote  is  evident  from  more  than  one  passage.4  That  he 
had  taught  his  Jewish  converts  in  Galatia  to  cease  observ- 
ing the  law,  and  to  live  like  Gentiles,  we  cannot  be  sure, 
though  he  must  at  least  have  insisted  that  they  should 
recognke  the  Gentile  disciples  as  brethren  in  the  full  sense 

1  Gal.  ii.  17.  3  Gal.  vi.  11  sq. 

2  Of.  Gal.  iii.  2,  v.  18  sq.  *  Gal.  iii.  28,  v.  i. 


226  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

and  should  fellowship  with  them.  He  must  also  have  in- 
sisted that  if  they  continued  to  observe  the  law  in  any 
particular,  they  should  not  do  it  as  a  means  of  justification. 
His  principles  were  really  such  as  to  lead  Jewish  as  well  as 
Gentile  disciples  to  neglect  the  law  entirely,  and  in  his 
epistle  he  clearly  applies  those  principles  to  the  former  as 
well  as  to  the  latter.1  So  far  as  he  himself  was  concerned, 
he  had  evidently  lived  among  them  like  a  Gentile,  putting 
his  principles  into  practice  before  them  all,2  and  the  difficul- 
ties which  had  arisen  would  not  incline  him  thenceforth  to 
look  with  favor  upon  any  other  course  on  the  part  of  his 
Jewish  converts,  whatever  he  might  think  as  to  the  con- 
duct of  Jews  when  by  themselves.3 

It  was  probably  while  Paul  was  still  in  Antioch,  before 
he  departed  upon  his  second  missionary  journey,  that  he 
wrote  the  letter  to  the  Galatians  which  we  have  been 
considering.  It  is  true  that  it  is  the  almost  universal 
opinion  of  scholars  that  the  epistle  was  written  upon 
Paul's  third  missionary  journey,4,  either  on  his  way  to 
Ephesus  or  during  his  three  years'  stay  there,5  the  Galatian 
visit,  mentioned  in  Acts  xviii.  23,  being  commonly  reckoned 
as  the  second  of  the  two  to  which  Paul  refers  in  his 
epistle.6  But  when  the  churches  addressed  by  Paul  are 
identified  with  the  churches  of  Antioch,  Iconium,  and 
Lystra,  where  he  preached  upon  his  first  missionary  journey, 
the  visit  mentioned  in  Acts  xviii.  23  becomes  the  third 


i  Cf.  especially  Gal.  v.  1.  2  Cf.  Gal.  iv.  12. 

8  The  agreement  into  which  Paul  entered  at  Jerusalem  provided  for  the 
continued  observance  of  the  law  by  Jewish  Christians.  He  could  take  no  ex- 
ception to  such  observance,  provided  it  was  not  practised  where  there  were 
Gentile  Christians  and  where  it  would  result  in  the  withdrawal  of  the  Jewish 
disciples  from  their  Gentile  brethren  and  the  consequent  implication  that  the 
latter  were  religiously  on  a  lower  plane  than  the  former. 

4  Described  in  Acts  xviii.  23  sq. 

6  Acts  xix.  1  sq.  Light  foot  puts  the  composition  of  the  epistle  still  later, 
maintaining  that  it  was  written  in  Macedonia,  after  the  Second  Epistle 
to  the  Corinthians.  In  support  of  this  opinion  he  urges  the  similarity  of 
subject  and  style  between  Galatians,  2  Corinthians,  and  Romans;  but  the 
truth  is  that  the  resemblances  are  far  less  striking  than  the  differences. 
Galatians,  in  fact,  deals  with  an  entirely  different  set  of  problems  and  reveals 
an  historic  situation  of  which  there  is  not  the  slightest  trace  in  either  of  the 
other  epistles. 

«  Gal.  iv.  13. 


THE  WORK  OF   PAUL  227 

instead  of  the  second  Galatian  visit,  and  it  is  therefore 
necessary,  if  we  follow  the  account  in  Acts,  to  put  the 
epistle  before  instead  of  after  that  visit ;  for  Gal.  iv.  13 
implies  that  Paul  had  been  in  Galatia  only  twice  before  he 
wrote.1  The  epistle,  then,  might  have  been  written  during 
his  second  missionary  journey,  between  the  time  when  he 
left  Galatia2  and  returned  to  Antioch.3  But  if  Paul  saw 
the  Galatian  Christians  during  the  interval  that  elapsed 
between  the  conference  at  Jerusalem  and  the  writing  of 
his  epistle,  it  is  exceedingly  difficult  to  understand  why 
he  should  be  obliged  to  give  them  in  his  letter  so  full  an 
account  of  that  conference  and  of  the  events  that  followed. 
It  seems  clear  that  in  Gal.  ii.  Paul  is  telling  his  readers 
of  events  about  which  they  had  before  heard  nothing,  at 
any  rate  from  him.  But  it  is  incredible  that  after  his 
experience  with  Judaizers  in  Jerusalem,  and  later  in 
Antioch,  he  could  have  been  so  short-sighted  as  to  fail  to 
foresee  that  they  would  yet  cause  him  trouble,  and  hence 
take  no  pains  at  all  to  fortify  his  own  converts  against 
their  machinations.  It  is  incredible,  in  fact,  that  he  can 
have  visited  Galatia  after  the  occurrences  referred  to  and 
have  said  absolutely  nothing  about  them.  He  lays  great 
stress  upon  those  events  when  he  writes  to  the  Galatians. 
Why  should  he  have  maintained  absolute  silence  respecting 
them  when  he  was  with  them  ?  This  consideration  seems 
sufficient  to  prove  that  the  epistle  must  have  been  written 
during  the  interval  between  the  conference  at  Jerusalem 
and  Paul's  next  visit  to  Galatia,  which  the  author  of  the 
Acts  mentions  in  xvi.  1  sq. 

Against  this  conclusion  there  is  no  serious  objection  to 
be  urged,  while  there  are,  on  the  contrary,  many  indica- 
tions that  the  conclusion  is  correct.  In  the  first  place, 
the  epistle  seems  to  have  been  written  very  soon  after 
the  Judaizers  had  begun  their  work  in  Galatia ;  for  while 
they  had  already  met  with  considerable  success,  the  defec- 
tion of  the  Galatians  was  evidently  in  its  early  stages  when 

1  rb  Trp6repov  is  the  phrase  used.  2  Acts  xvi.  6. 

3  Acts  xviii.  22.  This  is  the  opinion  of  Kendall,  who  supposes  that  the 
epistle  was  written  in  Corinth  soon  after  Paul's  arrival  there  (Expositor, 
1894,  Vol.  IX.  p.  254  sq.). 


228  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE 

Paul  wrote.  In  the  second  place,  the  apostle  expresses 
his  surprise,  not  simply  that  his  converts  were  falling 
away  and  accepting  a  different  Gospel,  but  that  they  were 
doing  it  so  quickly.1  It  is  evident  that  no  very  long 
interval  had  elapsed  since  the  time  when  he  first  preached 
the  Gospel  to  them.  Again,  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  the 
two  visits  to  which  Paul  refers  in  Gal.  iv.  13  seem  to  have 
been  separated  by  only  a  short  interval.  It  is  so  difficult, 
indeed,  to  keep  them  apart  that  it  has  even  been  denied 
that  he  refers  to  more  than  one.2  But  if  our  assumption 
be  correct,  we  are  to  identify  the  first  occasion  on  which 
Paul  preached  the  Gospel  to  the  Galatians  with  his  trip 
eastward  from  Antioch  to  Derbe,  and  the  second  with  the 
return  trip  to  Antioch,  when  he  revisited  the  churches  he 
had  newly  founded.  Thus  his  words  seem  better  satisfied 
than  if  an  interval  of  some  years  be  inserted  between  the 
two  occasions.  Those  who  assume  another  and  later 
visit  to  Galatia,  before  the  writing  of  Paul's  epistle,  are 
obliged  to  reckon  these  two  as  one  ;  but  it  was  in  reality 
only  on  his  eastward  journey  and  not  on  his  return  west- 
ward, that  Paul  preached  to  the  Galatians,  "  because  of  an 
infirmity  of  the.  flesh."  Still  farther  it  should  be  remarked 
that  the  epistle  contains  no  personal  greetings  from  any 
one  in  Paul's  company  and  there  is  no  hint  that  he  had 
among  his  companions  any  one  with  whom  the  Galatians 
were  acquainted.  But  throughout  the  greater  part  of  his 
second  missionary  journey,  both  Silas  and  Timothy  were 
with  him,  the  latter  himself  a  Galatian,  and  the  names  of 
both  of  them  appear  in  the  salutations  of  the  two  epistles 
to  the  Thessalonians,  which  were  written  during  that 
journey.  Finally  it  is  to  be  observed  that  there  is  no 
sign  in  any  other  of  Paul's  epistles  that  the  Judaizers 
were  causing  him  serious  trouble.  That  fact  would  seem 
to  indicate  that  he  had  fought  his  battle  with  them  and 
won  his  victory  over  them  at  an  early  day,  at  a  time  before 
he  had  begun  his  missionary  work  in  Western  Asia  and  in 
Europe,  so  that  when  he  went  thither,  he  went  forewarned 


1  Gal.  i.  6.    The  words  OVTWS  rax^ws  are  emphatic. 

2  Cf,  Volkniar  :  Paulus  von  Damascus  bis  zum  Galaterbrief,  S.  100  sq. 


THE  WORK   OF  PAUL  229 

and  forearmed  and  took  pains  to  fortify  his  churches 
against  the  adversaries  that  had  done  so  much  mischief  in 
Galatia.  But  if  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  was  written 
between  the  conference  at  Jerusalem  and  the  Galatian 
visit  referred  to  in  Acts  xvi.  1  sq.,  it  is  natural  to  think 
of  Antioch  as  the  place  of  composition ;  for  Paul  returned 
thither  after  the  conference  and  went  thence,  apparently 
with  no  long  delay  upon  the  way,  to  Galatia.1  There  is, 
indeed,  a  possible  hint  in  Gal.  ii.  11,  that  Paul  was 
actually  writing  at  Antioch,  and  not  long  after  the  event 
there  recorded.  In  the  light  of  all  that  has  been  said,  we 
shall  probably  be  safe  in  concluding  that  the  epistle  was 
written  soon  after  the  controversy  with  Peter,  while  Paul 
was  still  in  Antioch  and  before  he  had  started  on  his 
second  missionary  journey.2 

The  epistle  to  the  Galatians  is  thus  the  earliest  of  Paul's 
epistles  known  to  us,  antedating  by  some  two  years  the 
First  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians,  which  is  commonly 
regarded  as  the  oldest  that  we  have.3  That  it  should  have 

1  Acts  xv.  41,  xvi.  1. 

2  Volkmar  (I.e.  S.  31  sq.)  also  holds  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatiaus  wag 
written  at  Antioch,  but  he  assigns  it  to  a  later  time,  when  Paul  was  in  Antioch 
at  the  close  of  his  second  missionary  journey  (Acts  xviii.  22).    He  maintains, 
however,  that  Paul  was  only  once  (Acts  xvi.  G)  in  Galatia  (which  he  regards 
as  North  Galatia)  before  he  wrote,  and  not  after  but  before  the  conference  at 
Jerusalem,  which  he  thinks  displaced  by  the  author  of  the  Acts. 

3  It  is  an  interesting  fact  that  Marcion  put  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  first 
in  his  New  Testament  Canon.    Whether  he  was  actuated  by  chronological 
considerations,  we  do  not  know.    The  difficulty  of  putting  so  doctrinal  an 
epistle  as  Galatians  earlier  than  the  much  simpler  epistles  to  the  Thessalo- 
nians, which  suggests  itself  at  once,  is  less  real  than  it  may  seem  at  first 
sight.    There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  great  underlying  principles  of  Paul's 
Gospel,  which  appear  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  were  clear  to  him  long 
before  he  wrote  any  of  his  epistles ;  and  the  lack  of  emphasis  upon  them  in 
the  Thessalonian  letters  cannot  be  due  to  the  early  date  of  those  letters,  but 
only  to  the  purpose  for  which  they  were  written.    There  is  nothing  in  Gala- 
tians, as  there  is  possibly  in  Romans  and  in  the  epistles  of  the  captivity,  which 
points  to  a  development  in  Paul's  thought  beyond  the  positions  held  by  him  at 
the  time  of  the  conference  at  Jerusalem.    The  epistles  to  the  Thessalonians 
can  be  assigned  an  earlier  date  than  Galatians,  on  the  ground  of  their  omis- 
sion of  the  doctrinal  element  which  characterizes  the  latter,  only  if  they  be 
put  before  the  Council  at  Jerusalem  and  the  Antiochian  trouble  which  followed. 
This  Clemen  actually  d(jes(Chronologie  der  paulinischen  Briefe,  S.  205  sq.) ,  but 
without  sufficient  warrant.    On  the  ordinary,  and  without  doubt  correct  view, 
that  the  council  preceded  Paul's  second  missionary  journey,  during  which  the 
Thessalonian  letters  were  written,  no  argument  against  the  early  date  of  Gal- 
atians has  any  validity.    See  also  p.  147,  above. 


230  THE   APOSTOLIC    AGE 

been  written  at  this  early  date,  before  Paul  left  Antioch,  is 
very  natural.  Doubtless  the  council  at  Jerusalem  and 
especially  the  controversy  at  Antioch  were  the  signal  for 
the  Judaizers  to  begin  their  campaign  against  Paul,  and  it 
was  inevitable  that  they  should  speedily  find  their  way  to 
Galatia,  which  was  near  at  hand  and  recently  evangelized, 
and  the  churches  of  which  were  so  largely  composed  of 
Gentile  converts.  It  was  natural  also  that  tidings  of  their 
work  should  quickly  reach  the  apostle  at  Antioch,  and  if 
he  did  not  happen  to  be  able  to  leave  for  Galatia  at  once, 
he  would  of  course  write  to  them  immediately. 

At  the  time  Paul  wrote,  the  division  in  the  Antiochian 
church  which  had  been  caused  by  Peter's  visit  may  still 
have  been  giving  him  trouble,  and  may  have  contributed 
to  the  distress  and  anxiety  which  are  evident  on  every 
page  of  his  letter.  But  however  that  may  be,  it  was 
apparently  not  long  afterward  that  the  difficulties  had  so 
far  settled  themselves  that  he  was  able  to  start  again 
upon  a  missionary  tour,  and  as  we  should  expect,  he 
hastened  at  once  to  Galatia.  Upon  this  journey  he  took 
with  him  as  his  companion,  not  Barnabas,  who  had  accom- 
panied him  before,  but  Silas,  who,  according  to  Acts  xv. 
22,  was  one  of  the  messengers  appointed  by  the  church 
of  Jerusalem  to  carry  their  decree  to  Antioch,1  and  who 
is  doubtless  to  be  identified  with  the  Silvanus  whom  Paul 
mentions  in  his  epistles.2  The  separation  of  Paul  and 

1  There  is  apparently  some  confusion  in  the  account,  for  in  vs.  33  Silas  is 
said  to  have  gone  back  to  Jerusalem,  and  there  is  no  notice  of  his  return  to 
Antioch.    This  fact  led  some  copyist  to  insert  the  statement:  "  But  it  seemed 
good  to  Silas  to  abide  there,"  which  appears  in  some  late  manuscripts  and  is 
found  in  our  Authorized  Version.    It  may  well  be  that  Silas  and  Judas  Barsab- 
bas  actually  returned  to  Antioch  with  Paul  and  Barnabas,  to  carry  the  greet- 
ings of  the  Mother  Church  and  to  assure  the  Gentile  disciples  that  they  were 
recognized  as  brethren  by  the  Christians  of  Jerusalem,  but  their  connection 
with  the  decree  is  problematical.    Had  Silas  been  one  of  the  emissaries  from 
Jerusalem  who  brought  the  decree  to  Antioch  and  took  Peter  to  task  for  his 
conduct,  Paul  could  hardly  have  cared  to  take  him  on  a  missionary  tour,  and 
he  would  probably  not  have  cared  to  go.    Silas  was  with  Paul  apparently  dur- 
ing the  greater  part  of  the  second  missionary  journey,  after  which  we  hear 
no  more  of  him,  except  in  1  Peter  v.  12,  where,  under  the  name  of  Silvanus, 
he  appears  as  the  author's  amanuensis. 

2  1  Thess.  i.  1 ;  2  Thess.  i.  1 ;  2  Cor.  i.  19.   "The  names  are  the  same,  Silas 
being  the  Greek  and  Silvanus  the  Latin  form.     Weizsacker  questions  the 


THE   WORK   OF  PAUL  231 

Barnabas  is  stated  by  the  author  of  the  Acts  to  have  been 
the  result  of  a  disagreement  concerning  John  Mark,  who 
had  deserted  the  missionaries  when  they  were  in  Pam- 
phylia  some  years  before.1  It  is  possible,  however,  that 
the  real  reason  lay  deeper  than  this ;  that  their  difference 
of  principle  touching  the  relations  of  Jews  and  Gentiles 
within  the  church,  which  the  recent  occurrences  at  An- 
tioch  had  revealed,  made  farther  association  in  the  work 
among  the  heathen  seem  undesirable  to  both  of  them. 
That  the  disagreement  was  not  such  as  to  alienate  them 
permanently,  is  clear  from  Paul's  reference  to  Barnabas 
in  1  Cor.  ix.  6,  which,  if  it  does  not  show  that  the  two 
men  were  again  together,  at  least  indicates  that  they  were 
not  enemies.  Barnabas,  therefore,  was  probably  led  finally 
to  see  the  untenable  nature  of  the  position  he  took  at 
Antioch  and  to  range  himself  again  upon  Paul's  side.2 

After  passing  through  Syria  and  Cilicia,  Paul  hastened 
westward  into  the  province  of  Galatia  to  revisit  in  com- 
pany with  Silas  the  churches  which  had  been  founded 
some  years  before  by  himself  and  Barnabas,  and  to  which 
he  had  recently  written  his  epistle.  The  letter  had  appar- 
ently had  the  desired  effect ;  for  Paul  was  received  in  a 
friendly  spirit,  and  one  of  his  Galatian  converts,  Timothy, 
became  his  companion  at  this  time  and  continued  until 
the  close  of  his  life  his  dearest  and  most  trusted  friend.3 

identity  of  the  two  men,  suggesting  that  Luke  displaced  the  Silvanusof  Paul's 
epistles  with  the  Silas  of  Jerusalem  in  order  to  emphasize  Paul's  connection 
with  the  Mother  Church  (I.e.  S.  247;  Eng.  Trans.,  Vol.  I.  p.  292). 

1  Acts  xiii.  13,  xv.  38. 

2  It  was  impossible  for  either  Barnabas  or  Peter  to  occupy  permanently  the 
ground  they  took  at  Antioch.    Either  they  must  go  back  to  the  position  of 
James,  or  go  on  to  the  position  of  Paul,  so  far  as  it  related  to  the  observance 
of  the  law.    If  my  theory  in  regard  to  the  authorship  of  1  Peter  be  correct, 
Barnabas  must  have  reached  ultimately  the  view  of  Paul  upon  the  subject  in 
dispute,  and  must  have  accepted  also  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  Pauline 
Gospel  upon  which  that  view  was  based.    See  below,  p.  485  sq.    After  separat- 
ing from  Paul,  Barnabas  went  with  John  Mark  to  Cyprus,  his  native  home. 
He  is  not  again  mentioned  in  the  writings  of  the  period  except  in  ICor.  ix.  6. 
Mark  appears  again  as  Paul's  companion  in  Col.  iv.  10,  2  Tim.  iv.  11,  and 
Philemon  24,  and  as  the  companion  of  the  author  of  the  first  epistle  of  Peter  in 
1  Peter  v.  13.    On  his  connection  with  the  second  Gospel,  see  below,  p.  485  sq. 
That  he  was  subsequently  on  such  friendly  terms  with  Paul  shows  that  the 
separation  at  this  time  left  no  permanent  unpleasantness. 

3  Cf.  especially  Phil.  ii.  20. 


232  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

There  is  no  hint  that  Paul  ever  had  any  more  difficulty 
with  these  churches,  which  were  so  dear  to  him,  but  which 
had  caused  him  such  anxiety  and  distress.  His  victory 
over  the  Judaizers  seems  to  have  been  complete,  and  they 
appear  to  have  given  him  no  farther  trouble,  at  any  rate 
in  Galatia,  and  no  serious  trouble  anywhere.1 

The  most  striking  incident  connected  with  this  Galatian 
visit  is  recorded  in  Acts  xvi.  3,  where  it  is  stated  that 
Paul  circumcised  Timothy  "because  of  the  Jews  that 
were  in  those  parts ;  for  they  all  knew  that  his  father 
was  a  Greek."  The  truth  of  this  report  has  been 
doubted  by  many  scholars,  on  the  ground  that  the  action 
is  inconsistent  with  Paul's  attitude  at  Jerusalem  touch- 
ing the  proposition  to  circumcise  Titus,  and  also  with  his 
principles  so  clearly  and  repeatedly  avowed  in  his  Epistle 
to  the  Galatians.2  It  should  be  remarked,  however,  that 
the  cases  of  Timothy  and  Titus  were  by  no  means  parallel. 
Titus  was  a  Greek.  Timothy,  though  his  father  was  a 
Greek,  was  the  son  of  a  Jewish  mother.  In  the  case  of 
Titus  also  there  was  a  principle  at  stake,  and  to  have 
circumcised  him  under  the  circumstances  would  have 
been  to  sacrifice  that  liberty  of  the  Gentiles  which  Paul 
had  gone  to  Jerusalem  on  purpose  to  maintain.  It  should 
be  noticed,  moreover,  that  there  are  other  passages  in 
Paul's  epistles  of  a  different  tenor  from  those  referred  to, 
which  make  it  clear  that  such  action  as  he  is  reported 
to  have  taken  in  Timothy's  case  would  not  have  been 
regarded  by  him  under  ordinary  circumstances  as  incon- 
sistent and  out  of  place,  provided  it  could  be  made  to 
contribute  to  the  spread  of  the  Gospel.3  We  are  not 
warranted,  therefore,  in  asserting  on  general  grounds  that 
Paul  cannot  have  circumcised  the  son  of  a  Jewess  under 
any  circumstances.  If  he  wished  to  have  him  accompany 
him  upon  his  missionary  journeys,  where  it  might  prove  at 
times  a  real  advantage  for  him  to  be  able  to  mingle  freely 

1  Paul  visited  the  Galatians  again  some  years  later  (Acts  xviii.  23)  and  they 
contributed  with  his  other  churches  to  the  great  fund  which  he  collected  for 
the  poor  saints  of  Jerusalem  (1  Cor.  xvi.  1). 

2  See  especially  Gal.  v.  1  sq.  and  compare  1  Cor.  vii.  18. 
8  Cf.  Rom.  i.  16,  iii.  1,  xi.  14,  and  especially  1  Cor.  ix.  20. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  233 

with  Jews,  it  is  conceivable  that  he  might  have  taken  the 
unusual  step. 

But  it  is  not  to  be  denied  that  there  are  certain  peculiar 
difficulties  in  this  particular  case  which  cannot  be  met  by 
the  mere  general  considerations  that  have  been  urged. 
The  visit  to  Derbe  and  Lystra,  recorded  in  Acts  xvi.  1  sq., 
took  place  not  long  after  the  conference  at  Jerusalem  and 
the  controversy  at  Antioch,  when  Paul  must  have  been 
peculiarly  sensitive  upon  the  subject  of  circumcision  and 
the  observance  of  the  Jewish  law,  and  when  he  must  have 
been  unusually  careful  to  avoid  everything  that  might  be 
interpreted  by  his  enemies  as  a  stultification  of  the  prin- 
ciples for  which  he  had  so  recently  done  battle.  There  is 
no  time  in  his  life  when  we  should  suppose  him  less  likely 
to  circumcise  one  of  his  converts.  Moreover,  Timothy 
was  a  Galatian,  a  member  of  one  of  the  churches  addressed 
in  that  very  epistle  in  which  Paul  deprecates  circumcision 
in  the  strongest  terms.  If  he  had  circumcised  Timothy 
before  he  wrote  his  epistle,  why  is  there  no  hint  of  the  fact 
in  such  a  passage  as  Gal.  v.  1  sq.  ?  Why  is  there  no  refer- 
ence there  to  the  exceptional  character  of  Timothy's  case 
which  must  have  been  in  the  thoughts  of  many  of  his 
readers?  Could  he  have  spoken  in  such  positive  and 
sweeping  terms  with  the  memory  of  that  case  fresh  in  his 
mind  ?  Could  he  have  done  it  even  if  Timothy  had  not 
been  a  Galatian  ? 

On  the  other  hand,  if  the  epistle  was  written,  as  main- 
tained above,  before  the  journey  recorded  in  Acts  xv.  40  sq., 
it  is  scarcely  less  difficult  to  understand  the  occurrence  in 
question.  It  might  be  said  indeed  that  having  conquered 
his  adversaries  and  won  the  renewed  confidence  and  alle- 
giance of  the  Galatians,  he  could  venture  now  without  fear 
of  misinterpretation  to  perform  an  act  which  at  any  other 
time  would  have  been  misunderstood.  And  yet  what 
elaborate  explanations  and  apologies  he  would  have  been 
obliged  to  make  in  order  that  his  act  might  not  plunge  the 
weak  brethren  again  into  difficulties  and  open  the  door  for 
a  new  influx  of  Judaizing  zeal !  And  what  was  the  great 
end  that  should  justify  such  a  risk?  That  he  did  not 


234  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE 

consider  it  necessary  for  all  his  companions  and  helpers  to 
be  circumcised,  is  clear  from  the  case  of  Titus,  who  was 
one  of  his  most  efficient  and  valued  assistants,  and  did  ex- 
cellent service  in  connection  with  the  Corinthian  church.1 
Evidently  Timothy  might  have  accomplished  much,  even 
though  uncircumcised,  and  his  companionship  would  have 
brought  no  more  reproach  upon  Paul  than  the  companion- 
ship of  Titus.  While  if  Paul  felt  the  need  of  a  Jewish 
helper,  he  already  had  one  in  the  person  of  Silas.  In  the 
light  of  all  that  has  been  said  it  must  be  recognized  that 
grave  difficulties  beset  the  account  in  Acts  xvi.  3,  and  its 
immediate  juxtaposition  to  the  statement  that  Paul  and 
Silas  delivered  the  decree,  which  had  been  adopted  at 
Jerusalem,  to  the  churches  which  they  visited 2  does  not 
enhance  its  trustworthiness.  And  yet  the  report  cannot 
be  regarded  as  an  invention.  It  is  altogether  probable 
that  Timothy,  though  the  son  of  a  Greek  father,  was  actu- 
ally circumcised,  and  that  too  under  circumstances  which 
excited  remark  and  caused  the  fact  to  be  remembered. 
May  it  be  that  he  was  one  of  Paul's  Galatian  converts  who 
had  received  circumcision  at  the  instance  of  the  Judaizers  ? 
And  may  it  be  that  when  Paul  arrived  in  Galatia,  he  found 
him  so  regretful  for  what  had  taken  place,  and  so  earnest 
and  zealous  in  his  support  of  the  true  Gospel,  that  he 
chose  him  as  a  companion,  with  the  declaration  "  circumci- 
sion is  nothing  and  uncircumcision  is  nothing ;  but  a  new 
creature  "  ?  It  would  have  been  easy  in  that  case  for  the 
tradition  to  grow  up  that  the  Gentile  Timothy,  Paul's 
convert  and  dearest  fellow-worker,  had  received  circumci- 
sion at  Paul's  own  hands,  and  the  fact  that  his  mother  was 
a  Jewess  might  naturally  seem  to  supply  the  explanation. 

6.  THE  EVANGELIZATION  OF  MACEDONIA 

After  leaving  Lystra,  the  home  of  Timothy,  Paul  and 
his  companions  travelled  westward  through  the  province 
of  Galatia,  visiting  doubtless  both  Iconium  and  Antioch 
and  possibly  other  places  not  known  to  us.  It  is  to  this 

i  Cf .  2  Cor.  ii.  13,  vii.  6,  13  sq.,  viii.  6, 16,  etc.  2  Acts  xvi.  4. 


THE  WORK  OF   PAUL  235 

journey  through  the  southern  part  of  the  Galatian  prov- 
ince, or  Phrygia-Galatica,  that  Luke  refers  in  Acts  xvi.  6, 
and  not  to  a  trip  through  North  Galatia.  Ramsay  has  shown 
that  the  phrase  which  Luke  employs1  correctly  describes 
that  part  of  the  Galatian  province  in  which  Antioch  and 
Iconium  were  situated,  and  there  is  no  ground  whatever 
for  inserting  at  this  point  a  visit  to  North  Galatia,  which 
would  have  taken  the  travellers  entirely  out  of  their  way, 
and  a  satisfactory  motive  for  which  it  is  impossible  to 
discover.  Paul  had  apparently  intended  to  hasten  on 
westward  in  the  direction  of  Ephesus,  after  a  brief  stay  in 
Galatia,  but  for  some  reason  he  was  "  forbidden  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  to  speak  the  word  in  Asia,"2  and  consequently 
turned  northward  toward  Bithynia  until  he  came  opposite 
Mysia,  when,  finding  himself  again  stopped,  he  made  his 
way  westward  through  Mysia,  without  preaching  any- 
where until  he  arrived  at  Troas  on  the  ^Egean  Sea.3  He 
had  thus  come  all  the  way  from  Pisidian  Antioch  to  Troas, 
apparently  without  stopping  to  do  any  evangelistic  work. 
He  seems  to  have  been  looking  all  the  time  for  an  open 
field.  He  felt  the  whole  heathen  world  calling  him,  but 
he  did  not  know  where  to  begin.  Twice  his  designs  had 
been  frustrated,  and  he  had  finally  found  himself,  when  at 
the  frontier  of  Bithynia,  forced  either  to  turn  back  or  to  go 
on  westward.  He  had  chosen  the  latter  course,  and  was 
now  on  the  shore  of  the  Mediterranean,  still  without  a 
field.  All  Europe  lay  before  him,  but  Asia  lay  behind  still 
unevangelized.  Should  he  go  forward,  or  should  he  turn 

1  TTJV  Qpvyiav  Kal  Ta\ariK7]v  x^P^-    See  Ramsay:  Church  in  the  Roman 
Empire,  p.  74  sq. 

2  Ramsay  (St.  Paul,  the  Traveller  and  Roman  Citizen,  p.  194  sq.)  is  very 
likely  right  in  following  the  inferior  manuscripts  in  Acts  xvi.  6,  and  reading 
with  the  textus  receptus  die\66vTes  instead  of  8iT)\0ov.     But  he  has  shown, 
(p.  211)  that  even  if  8irj\9ov  be  read,  as  in  the  great  manuscripts  and  the 
Revised   Version,  the  sentence  can  be  interpreted  in  practically  the  same 
way,  making  the  prohibition  against  preaching  in  Asia  follow  and  not  precede 
the  work  in  Galatia.     See  also  Gifford  in  the  Expositor,  Vol.  X.,  1894,  p.  16  sq. 

3  Trape\96vT€s  in  Acts  Xvi.  8  must  be  understood,  not  in  the  sense  of  passing 
alongside  of  Mysia,  but  of  passing  through  it  without  preaching,  that  is, 
"  neglecting  "  it,  for  Troas  could  be  reached  by  Paul  only  through  Mysia  (cf. 
Ramsay:    St.  Paul,  p.   196  sq.).     Blass   (in  his  Acta  Apostolorum)   reads 
8ie\66vT€s,  on  the  authority  of  the  Bezan  text,  but  the  other  reading  is  to  be 
preferred. 


236  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

back  and  make  another  experiment?  Whatever  his  hope 
may  have  been  of  ultimately  preaching  the  Gospel  in 
Europe,  he  evidently  had  not  intended  to  go  thither  until 
he  had  established  Christianity  in  Western  Asia.  It  might 
well  seem  to  him  a  step  of  doubtful  expediency,  to  leave 
the  better-known  lands  and  peoples  and  plunge  into  new 
and  unfamiliar  scenes.  It  was  while  he  was  debating  the 
question,  uncertain  what  course  to  pursue,  that  he  had  the 
dream  which  Luke  reports  in  Acts  xvi.  9.  "  There  was  a 
man  of  Macedonia  standing,  beseeching  him,  and  saying, 
Come  over  into  Macedonia,  and  help  us."  He  regarded 
the  dream  as  an  indication  of  God's  will  that  he  should 
take  the  decisive  step ;  that  he  should  leave  Asia  behind 
and  press  on  to  a  new  continent.  The  way  in  which  the 
author  represents  Paul  as  led  and  guided  by  the  Spirit 
throughout  this  entire  journey  from  Galatia  to  Troas,  and 
over  into  Macedonia,  is  very  significant ;  and  it  is  undoubt- 
edly true  to  Paul's  own  experience.  As  he  looked  back 
upon  these  days  of  uncertainty  and  indecision,  when  obsta- 
cles hemmed  him  in  on  this  side  and  on  that  in  unaccount- 
able ways,  and  prevented  him  from  carrying  out  one  plan 
after  another,  it  is  not  surprising  that  he  saw  God's  provi- 
dence directing  his  every  step  and  leading  him  on  to  the 
larger  work  across  the  seas. 

It  is  just  at  this  juncture,  when  Paul,  in  obedience  to  the 
summons  he  had  received,  set  sail  from  Troas  for  Mace- 
donia, that  there  begins,  without  warning  or  introduction, 
the  first  of  those  passages  containing  the  pronoun  "we," 
which  are  scattered  through  the  second  half  of  the  Book 
of  Acts.  There  are  four  of  the  passages,  all  of  them  con- 
taining accounts  of  journeys:  the  first,  Acts  xvi.  10-17, 
describing  the  journey  from  Troas  to  Philippi,  with  some 
events  that  occurred  in  the  latter  city;  the  second,  Acts  xx. 
5-16,  the  journey  from  Philippi  to  Miletus,  which  took 
place  some  years  later ;  the  third,  if  it  be  separated  from 
the  second,1  Acts  xxi.  1-18,  the  continuation  of  the  same 
journey  from  Miletus  to  Jerusalem  ;  the  fourth,  Acts  xxvii. 
1-xxviii.  16,  the  sea  voyage  from  Csesarea  to  Rome.  These 

1  But  see  below,  p.  338. 


THE  WORK   OF   PAUL  237 

passages  begin  and  end  abruptly  in  every  case,  arid  are  dis- 
tinguished from  other  parts  of  the  book  by  conciseness  of 
style,  vividness  of  description,  and  wealth  of  detail.  They 
are  evidently  notes  of  travel  written  by  one  of  Paul's  own 
companions,  who  was  a  participant  in  the  events  which  he 
records.  Coming  directly  as  they  do  from  the  pen  of  an 
eyewitness,  they  possess  a  unique  value  and  are  univer- 
sally recognized  as  exceptionally  trustworthy.  But  they 
present  to  the  student  of  the  Book  of  Acts  a  problem 
of  great  difficulty.  That  the  author  of  the  book  made 
extensive  use  of  written  sources  in  composing  his  work, 
as  he  did  in  composing  the  third  Gospel,  there  can  be 
no  doubt ;  but  the  question  is,  are  the  "  we  "  passages  to 
be  regarded  as  a  part  of  his  sources  or  are  we  to  suppose 
that  in  them  the  author  of  the  book  is  himself  the  narrator  ? 
In  the  latter  case  the  Book  of  Acts  and  the  third  Gospel 
are  from  the  pen  of  one  of  Paul's  companions.  This  is 
the  traditional  opinion,  and  is  still  maintained  by  many 
scholars.1  But  the  supposition  is  beset  with  serious  diffi- 
culties ;  for  the  knowledge  of  events  displayed  by  the  au- 
thor is  less  accurate  and  complete  than  might  be  expected 
in  one  who  had  been  personally  associated  for  any  length 
of  time  with  Paul  himself.  It  is  true  that  such  a  man 
might  easily  be  ill  informed  concerning  the  history  of  the 
church  of  Jerusalem  and  might  be  ignorant  of  much  of 
Paul's  early  life,  if  he  did  not  conceive  the  plan  of  writing 
his  work  until  after  the  apostle's  death,  when  adequate 
sources  of  information  were  largely  closed  to  him.  But 
his  work  betrays  a  similar  lack  of  knowledge  even  con- 
cerning the  latter  part  of  Paul's  career,  during  which  the 
author  of  the  "  we  "  passages  must  have  been  intimately 
associated  with  him,  at  least  a  part  of  the  time  ;  and  certain 
critical  periods  in  Paul's  life  are  treated  as  we  should  hardly 
expect  them  to  be  by  one  of  his  own  companions.2 

1  Of.  especially  Weiss:  Einleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament,  S.  583  sq.  (Eng. 
Trans.,  Vol.  II.  p.  347).    Among  the  most  recent  writers,  Blass  (Acta  Aposto- 
lorum)  and  Ramsay  (St.  Paul,  the  Traveller  and  Roman  Citizen)  maintain  the 
identity  of  the  writer  of  the  "  we  "  passages  and  the  author  of  the  Acts. 

2  Compare,  for  instance,  the  idea,  which  finds  frequent  expression,  that 
Paul  went  to  Jerusalem  immediately  after  his  conversion  and  did  missionary 


238  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE 

It  seems  necessary,  therefore,  to  conclude  that  the  author 
of  the  Acts  was  not  identical  with  the  eyewitness  who  ap- 
pears in  certain  parts  of  his  book.  If  the  "  we  "  passages 
then  are  to  be  ascribed  to  another  hand,  the  question  natu- 
rally suggests  itself,  did  they  constitute  originally  parts  of 
a  larger  work  ?  and  if  so,  did  the  author  of  the  Book  of 
Acts  make  use  of  other  portions  of  that  work?  This 
double  question  has  been  answered  in  the  affirmative  by 
many  scholars  in  recent  years.  In  fact,  there  seems  to  be  a 
growing  unanimity  upon  the  subject,  and  not  a  few  have 
thought  they  could  trace  the  document  which  contained  the 
"  we  "  passages  through  the  greater  part  of  Acts.1  That  an 
extended  and  generally  trustworthy  source,  beginning  with 
the  thirteenth  chapter  and  containing  an  account  of  Paul's 
missionary  labors,  underlies  the  second  half  of  the  book,2 
can  hardly  be  doubted  in  the  light  of  recent  investigations ; 
and  it  is  of  course  natural  to  regard  the  "  we  "  paragraphs 
as  a  part  of  that  source,  and  the  whole  consequently  as  the 
work  of  a  companion  of  Paul.  In  favor  of  this  assumption 
may  be  urged  not  only  the  use  of  the  first  personal  pronoun, 

work  there  (ix.  26  sq.,  xxii.  17  sq.,  xxvi.  20) ;  the  account  of  the  council  at 
Jerusalem  including  the  decree  (xv.)  ;  the  report  concerning  Timothy's  cir- 
cumcision (xvi.  3)  ;  the  lack  of  all  reference  to  the  great  collection,  which 
engaged  so  much  of  Paul's  attention  during  the  latter  part  of  his  missionary 
career ;  the  silence  touching  Paul's  dealings  with  the  Corinthian  church  during 
his  stay  in  Ephesus,  and  the  omission  of  the  name  of  Titus,  who  was  so.  prom- 
inent a  figure  at  that  time  in  Corinth  as  well  as  earlier  in  Jerusalem ;  the 
emphasis  upon  that  part  of  Paul's  work  which  was  of  least  importance 
in  so  many  of  the  cities  which  he  visited;  as,  e.g.,  in  the  cities  of  Galatia,  in 
Philippi,  Thessalonica,  Corinth,  etc.  Upon  his  failure  to  understand  Paul's 
theology,  little  stress,  perhaps,  can  be  laid,  for  so  few  of  Paul's  followers 
comprehended  him  fully ;  and  yet  we  should  hardly  expect  one  so  intimately 
acquainted  with  him  as  the  writer  of  the  "we  "  passages,  to  be  so  unfamiliar 
with  his  Gospel  as  the  author  of  the  Acts  seems  to  have  been. 

1  So,  for  instance,  Spitta  (Die  Apostelgeschichte,  1891)  and  Jiingst  (Qnellcn 
der  Apostelgeschichte ,  1895).  Wendt  (in  Meyer's  Commentary  on  Acts, 
7th  edition)  traces  the  source  through  the  latter  half  of  Acts,  beginning  with 
xi.  19.  He  also  emphasizes  the  fact  (Theol.  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1892)  that 
the  pronoun  "we"  occurs  in  xi.  28,  according  to  Codex  D.  According  to 
Clemen  (Chronologic  der  Paulinischen  Briefe,  S.  110  sq.)  and  Hilgenfeld  (Zcit- 
schrift  fiir  wiss.  Theoloyie,  1895  sq.),  the  source  begins  with  chap.  xiii. 
Weizsiicker  (I.e.  S.  204  sq. ;  Eng.  Trans.,  Vol.  I.  p.  242  sq.)  and  more  recently 
Sorof  (Entstehung  der  Apostelgeschichte,  S.  14)  deny  that  the  "we"  pas- 
sages constitute  a  part  of  the  larger  source  or  sources  used  by  the  author 
-a  source  which  Sorof  traces  through  the  entire  book. 
'•  And  possibly  also  a  part  of  chap.  xi. 


THE  WORK  OF  PAT7L  239 

but  also  and  especially  the  general  uniformity  of  style  be- 
tween the  "  we  "  sections  and  other  portions  of  the  book.1 
At  the  same  time,  the  fact  must  be  recognized  that  the  pas- 
sages in  question  may  have  been  originally  entirely  inde- 
pendent of  the  context  in  which  they  now  occur,  and  that 
the  author  of  the  Acts  combined  them  with  the  general 
source  from  which  he  drew  his  outline  of  Paul's  career. 
That  that  source  was  one  only,  and  that  they  constituted 
originally  a  part  of  it,  cannot  be  asserted  with  the  same 
assurance  with  which  we  assume  the  fact  of  its  existence.2 
From  Troas  Paul  and  his  companions,  among  whom 
were  Silas,  Timothy,3  and  the  unknown  author  of  the 
"we"  passages,  took  ship  for  Neapolis  and  thence  made 
their  way,  apparently  without  delay,  to  the  important  city 
of  Philippi,  which  lay  some  eight  miles  inland.  It  was  in 
the  neighborhood  of  Philippi,  in  the  year  42  B.C.,  that  Octa- 
vius  and  Antony  won  their  great  and  decisive  victory  over 
Brutus  and  Cassius,  and  in  honor  of  that  event  the  city 
had  been  made  a  Roman  colony.  Its  citizens  were  Roman 
citizens,  and  its  laws  were  Roman  laws.  The  city  was  in 
fact,  so  far  as  language,  government,  and  customs  went, 
a  miniature  Rome.  In  this  thoroughly  Romanized  town 
Paul's  missionary  labors  in  Europe  began.  There  seem 
to  have  been  few  Jews  in  the  place,  for  they  had  appar- 
ently no  synagogue,  and  were  accustomed  to  meet  for 

1  See  especially  Spitta,  I.e.  S.  235  sq.,  257  sq. 

2  Nowhere  else  is  the  source  which  the  author  of  the  Acts  used  marked  by 
anything  like  the  vividness,  preciseness,  and  fulness  of  detail  that  charac- 
terize the  "we"  sections.    If  they  formed  part  of  a  larger  whole,  the  re- 
mainder of  the  document  from  which  they  were  taken  must  have  been  very* 
meagre,  as  is  clear  when  the  evident  additions  of  the  author  of  the  Acts  are 
eliminated.    That  a  companion  of  Paul  writing  an  account  of  his  missionary 
career  should  relate  with  such  minuteness  three  episodes  in  his  life,  simply 
because  he  happened  to  be  an  eyewitness  of  them,  and  should  content  himself 
with  such  brief  references  to  the  rest  of  his  career,  is  not  altogether  what  we 
should  expect.    Were  it  not  for  the  identity  of  diction  between  the  "we" 
passages  and  other  parts  of  the  book,  and  the  lack  of  any  sign  of  a  break 
between  the  former  and  their  immediate  context,  it  would  be  easiest  to  sup- 
pose that  the  author  of  the  Acts,  coming  into  possession  of  fragments  of  a 
journal  dealing  with  periods  covered  in  the  general  source,  which  he  was 
using,  substituted  their  fuller  and  more  explicit  account  for  the  briefer  record 
contained  in  the  latter.    Upon  the  composition  of  the  Book  of  Actg,  see 
also  p.  433,  below. 

8  Phil.  i.  1,  ii.  19  sq. 


240  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

prayer  by  the  river  bank  without  the  walls.1  In  the  cities 
of  Galatia  Paul  had  begun  his  work  in  the  synagogues, 
and  following  the  same  principle,  he  sought  the  Jews' 
place  of  worship  on  the  Sabbath,  and  told  his  message 
to  those  that  came  thither.  The  author  speaks  only  of 
women,  as  if  no  men  were  present,  and  among  them  he 
singles  out  as  worthy  of  special  mention  a  proselyte  Lydia, 
who  was  apparently  a  woman  of  some  wealth  and  conse- 
quence2 and  who  after  her  conversion  entertained  Paul 
and  his  companions  in  her  own  house.  No  other  converts 
are  mentioned  in  Acts  except  the  jailor  and  his  household. 
But  "  the  brethren  "  are  referred  to  in  xvi.  40  as  if  there 
were  already  many  of  them,  and  in  his  Epistle  to  the 
Philippians  Paul  alludes  to  two  women,  Euodia  and  Syn- 
tyche,3  and  three  men,  Epaphroditus,4  Synzygus,  and  Clem- 
ent,5 while  in  the  opening  of  the  epistle  he  addresses  not 
only  the  Philippian  disciples  in  general,  but  also  the 
bishops  and  deacons,  showing  that  the  church  must  have 
had  a  considerable  membership  at  the  time  he  wrote.6 

Of  Paul's  work  in  Philippi  the  author  of  the  Acts  tells 
us  very  little.  The  greater  part  of  his  account  is  devoted 
to  Paul's  arrest  and  imprisonment,  which  took  place  as  the 
result  of  a  miracle  performed  by  him  upon  a  maid  "  pos- 
sessed with  a  spirit  of  divination."7  The  maid  thus  de- 
scribed was  probably  a  ventriloquist,  and  as  ventriloquism 
was  commonly  believed  among  the  ancients  to  be  due  to 
supernatural  influence,  and  to  imply  the  possession  of 
superhuman  insight,  it  was  natural  that  she  should  acquire 
the  reputation  common  enough  in  those  days  of  being  a 
prophetess,  a  reputation  which  her  masters  were  not  slow 

1  Acts  xvi.  13.    The  text  underlying  the  Authorized  Version  is  doubtless 
to  be  preferred  at  this  point  to  the  text  reproduced  in  the  Revised  Version ; 
"  where  they  were  wont  to  meet  for  prayer,"  instead  of  "  where  we  supposed 
there  was  a  place  of  prayer."    See  Blass,  in  loc. 

2  Acts  xvi.  15.          »  phii.  iv.  2.          4  phii.  ii.  25,  iv.  18.         «  Phil.  iv.  3. 

6  It  is  interesting  to  notice  that  not  only  in  Philippi  but  also  in  Thessalonica 
and  Beroaa,  Paul's  success  among  the  women  is  especially  referred  to  by  Luke. 
That  their  influence  was  felt  at  least  in  the  church  of  Philippi  is  clear  from 
Paul's  statement  in  Phil.  iv.  3,  that  Euodia  and  Syntyche  had  labored  with 
him  in  the  Gospel.  On  the  position  of  women  in  Macedonia,  see  Lightfoot's 
Commentary  on  Philippians,  p.  55  sq. 

'  Acts  xvi.  16. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  241 

to  turn  to  their  own  account.  The  maid,  we  are  told,  fol- 
lowed Paul  and  his  companions  for  some  days,  and  testi- 
fied publicly  to  their  divine  mission.  What  led  her  to  do 
so,  and  why  her  testimony  so  annoyed  Paul,  we  do  not 
know ;  but  as  Christ  frequently  did  under  similar  circum- 
stances, he  finally  turned  upon  her  and  commanded  the 
spirit  to  come  out  of  her.  Paul  testifies  to  his  own  belief 
in  the  reality  of  demons  in  1  Cor.  x.  20,  and  to  his  exercise 
of  miraculous  powers  in  2  Cor.  xii.  12,  so  that  there  is 
nothing  in  the  account  to  betray  the  hand  of  a  later  writer. 
The  occurrence  was  doubtless  related  by  the  eyewitness 
who  wrote  the  document  which  Luke  quotes  in  vs.  10  sq.1 
The  first  personal  pronoun  is  not  used  after  vs.  17,  and 
how  much  of  that  which  follows  comes  from  the  "  we  " 
source,  is  uncertain.  But  there  is  no  reason,  at  any  rate, 
to  question  the  fact  of  the  arrest  and  imprisonment ;  for 
Paul  himself  refers  not  only  in  Philippians,2  but  also  in 
1  Thessalonians,3  to  the  persecution  and  ill  treatment 
which  he  had  endured  while  in  Philippi,4  and  the  latter 
passage  implies  that  he  had  been  obliged  to  leave  the 
city  in  consequence  of  his  troubles  there.  Nor  is  there 
any  reason  to  doubt  the  connection  of  the  arrest  of  Paul 
and  Silas5  with  the  occurrence  related  in  vs.  18;  for 
though  Paul's  act  hardly  constituted  a  basis  for  the  insti- 
tution of  legal  proceedings  against  him,  it  could  not 
but  arouse  the  enmity  of  the  girl's  masters,  and  it  was 
easy  for  them,  by  accusing  these  travelling  Jews  of  teach- 
ing strange  and  unlawful  customs,  to  play  upon  the  preju- 

1  For  a  plausible  explanation  of  the  event,  see  Ramsay :  St.  Paul,  the  Trav- 
eller and  Roman  Citizen,  p.  216. 

2  Phil.  i.  30.  3  1  Thess.  ii.  2. 

4  He  says  nothing,  however,  of  the  remarkable  deliverance  recorded  in 
Acts. 

5  The  Book  of  Acts  mentions  the  arrest  of  only  Paul  and  Silas,  and  says 
nothing  of  Timothy  and  the  other  companion  of  Paul.    It  may  be  that  only 
Paul  and  Silas  were  arrested  because  they  were  the  leaders  or  because  they 
alone  were  Jews.   At  any  rate,  we  cannot  argue  from  the  omission  of  Timothy's 
name  in  the  account  of  Paul's  work  both  in  Philippi  and  in  Thessalonica  that 
he  was  not  with  Paul  in  either  city ;  for  Phil.  i.  1,  ii.  19,  1  Thess.  i.  1,  iii.  1  sq., 
and  2  Thess.  i.  1  clearly  imply  that  he  assisted  in  the  establishment  of  Chris- 
tianity in  both  places.    On  the  other  hand,  the  unnamed  author  of  the  "  we  " 
source  evidently  did  not  accompany  Paul  to  Thessalonica,  and  it  is  to  be 
doubted  whether  he  was  with  him  during  his  whole  stay  in  Philippi. 

B 


242  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

dices,  not  only  of  the  populace  who  instinctively  hated 
Jews  and  were  ready  to  believe  any  evil  of  them,  but  also 
of  the  magistrates  who  were  jealous  of  the  honor  of  their 
city  as  a  Roman  colony.  The  charge  brought  against 
Paul  lacked  definiteness,  to  be  sure,  and  would  hardly  have 
borne  investigation,  but  the  magistrates  seem  to  have 
taken  the  guilt  of  the  accused  men  for  granted,  and  to 
have  beaten  and  imprisoned  them  without  a  trial.1  It  was 
doubtless  the  realization  of  the  illegality  and  unbecoming 
haste  of  their  action,  that  led  them  to  release  the  prisoners 
on  the  following  day  without  further  examining  their  case. 
Why  Paul  and  Silas 2  did  not  announce  the  fact  that  they 
were  Roman  citizens  as  soon  as  they  were  brought  before 
the  magistrates  instead  of  waiting  until  the  next  day,  we 
are  not  told.  The  law  of  the  state  guaranteed  to  Roman 
citizens  immunity  from  scourging,  and  on  another  occa- 
sion Paul  is  reported  to  have  saved  himself  from  the  in- 
dignity by  claiming  his  legal  rights.3  It  seems  strange  that 
he  did  not  do  the  same  thing  in  Philippi.  But  that  for 
some  reason  he  did  not  always  choose  to  assert  the  pre- 
rogative of  a  Roman  citizen,  or  that  the  assertion  did  not 
always  avail,  is  proved  by  2  Cor.  xi.  25,  where  he  informs 
his  readers  that  he  had  been  thrice  beaten  with  rods. 

How  long  Paul  remained  in  Philippi,  we  do  not  know. 
The  account  in  Acts  would  lead  us  to  suppose  that  he  was 
there  but  a  short  time ;  but  it  is  certain  that  he  remained 
long  enough  to  gather  quite  a  number  of  converts,  and  to 
lay  the  foundation  of  a  strong  church  which  he  always  re- 
garded with  peculiar  affection,  and  whose  faithfulness  and 
unwavering  loyalty  to  him  was  a  source  of  perpetual  joy 
and  gratitude.4  From  the  Philippians  Paul  consented, 
contrary  to  his  usual  custom,  to  receive  financial  aid  on 
more  than  one  occasion.5  They  contributed  to  his  needs 
while  he  was  in  Thessalonica,6  and  again  in  Corinth,7  and 
when  he  was  a  prisoner  in  Rome  some  years  later,  they  did 
the  same  thing.8  Indeed  Paul's  epistle  to  them  seems  to 

1  Acts  xvi.  37.  2  They  were  both  Romans  according  to  Acts  xvi.  37. 

»  Acts  xxii.  26.  «  Phil.  iv.  15.  7  2  Cor.  xi.  9. 

<  Phil.  i.3sq.,ii.  12,  iv.  1.  6  Phil.  iv.  16.  «  Phil.  iv.  10, 18. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  243 

have  been  written  chiefly  for  the  purpose  of  thanking 
them  for  their  kindness  in  this  respect.1  There  is  none 
of  his  epistles  so  filled  with  expressions  of  joy,  and  none 
that  betrays  such  confidence  and  satisfaction,  as  his  letter 
to  his  best-beloved  church  written  from  Rome  some  ten 
years  after  its  foundation.2 

There  is  no  hint  that  Paul  felt  the  hostility  of  Jews  or 
Jewish  Christians  while  he  was  in  Philippi.  The  trouble 
which  he  had  there  was  brought  upon  him  by  heathen,  and 
the  Jews  seem  to  have  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with 
it.  It  is  true  that  the  persecutions  which  the  Christians 
of  Philippi  were  called  upon  to  endure  after  his  depart- 
ure3 were  apparently  due  to  Jewish  as  well  as  heathen 
prejudice,  but  there  is  no  sign  that  the  church  ever  suf- 
fered from  the  machinations  of  Judaizers.  The  disagree- 
ments and  divisions  which  Paul  deprecates  in  his  epistle 
to  them  were  seemingly  the  result  of  personal  and  not 
doctrinal  differences.  A  spirit  of  jealousy  and  rivalry  had 
made  its  way  into  the  church,4  and  was  causing  trouble,  es- 
pecially between  two  women  who  had  labored  with  Paul 
"  in  the  gospel,"  and  whom  he  held  in  high  esteem.6  The 
difficulty  was  evidently  not  of  a  very  serious  character,  for 
it  did  not  prevent  him  from  expressing  his  great  joy  and 
confidence  in  the  church  to  which  he  was  writing ;  but  at 
the  same  time  it  was  serious  enough  to  draw  from  him  ear- 
nest words  of  warning  and  of  exhortation.  The  immunity 
from  Judaistic  attacks  which  the  Philippian  church  en- 
joyed may  have  been  due  to  the  fact  that  there  were  com- 
paratively few  Jews  in  Philippi,  and  that  their  credit  and 
influence  were  small.6  But  inasmuch  as  in  Thessalonica, 
where  the  Jews  were  certainly  more  numerous,  there  seems 
to  have  been  a  like  immunity,  this  reason  can  hardly  be 
regarded  as  sufficient.  It  is  more  probable  that  after  his 
experience  in  Galatia,  Paul  was  on  his  guard,  and  that  he 

1  Phil.  ii.  25,  iv.  19.  2  Upon  the  epistle  itself  see  below,  p.  385  sq. 

3  Phil.  i.  28-30.  •*  Phil.  ii.  2  sq.  5  Phil.  iv.  2  sq. 

6  There  is  no  passage  in  Paul's  epistle  which  proves  that  the  Christians 
whom  he  addressed  were  exclusively  Gentiles ;  but  it  is  altogether  probable 
that  the  great  majority  of  them  were,  and  that  the  Jewish  contingency  within 
the  church  was  of  insignificant  size  and  influence. 


244  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

forewarned  both  the  Philippians  and  Thessalonians  against 
Judaizers.  The  effect  produced  by  his  Epistle  to  the  Gala- 
tians  shows  that  all  that  was  needed  in  order  to  forestall 
such  Judaizers  was  to  show  that  he  had  himself  been  called 
by  God  to  evangelize  the  Gentiles,  and  that  even  the  apos- 
tles at  Jerusalem  had  recognized  his  right  to  preach  the 
Gospel  which  he  had  received  from  God,  and  not  from 
man.1  It  was  not  by  Judaistic,  but  by  antinomian  ten- 
dencies, that  Paul  was  chiefly  troubled  in  the  Philippian 
church.2  Such  antinomianism  was  very  natural  in  con- 
verts from  heathendom,  and  he  had  to  combat  it  in  more 
than  one  epistle. 

From  Philippi,  Paul  and  his  companions  travelled  south- 
ward through  Amphipolis  and  Apollonia  to  Thessalonica, 
the  capital,  and  at  the  same  time  the  largest  and  most  im- 
portant city  of  Macedonia.  It  was  characteristic  of  Paul 
that  when  compelled  to  leave  Philippi,  he  did  not  go  into 
retirement  or  seek  some  less  prominent  and  important  field 
of  labor,  but  immediately  betook  himself  to  the  chief  city 
of  the  province.  In  Thessalonica,  a  great  commercial  me- 
tropolis, the  Jews  were  naturally  more  numerous  than  in 
Philippi,  and  they  had  a  synagogue,  which  Paul,  according 
to  the  Acts,  visited  on  three  successive  Sabbaths,  and  where 
he  proclaimed  Jesus  as  the  Messiah.3  The  summary  of  his 
preaching,  given  in  Acts  xvii.  2,  3,  is  based  apparently  not 
upon  direct  knowledge  of  what  Paul  actually  said  in  Thes- 
salonica, but  upon  the  author's  inference  as  to  what  he  must 
have  said  in  addressing  Jews.  The  discourse  recorded  in 
Acts  xiii.  made  it  unnecessary  to  do  more  here  than  to  state 
the  subject  of  his  preaching,  which  the  author  assumed,  of 
course,  to  have  been  the  same  as  on  all  similar  occasions. 
In  addressing  a  Jewish  audience,  a  Christian  preacher  must 
always  prove  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,4  and  this  could 
best  be  done  by  showing  that,  according  to  Scripture  proph- 
ecy, the  Messiah  must  suffer  and  die  and  rise  again,  just 
as  Jesus  had  suffered  and  died  and  risen. 

1  There  is  no  reference  to  Judaizers  in  either  of  the  epistles  to  the  Thessa- 
lonians, and  the  doctrine  of  liberty  from  the  Jewish  law  is  not  mentioned. 

2  Cf.  Phil.  iii.  19.  »  Acts  xvii.  3, 
4  Cf.  Acts  ii.,  iii.  12  sq.,  ix.  22,  xiii.  1G  sq.,  etc. 


THE  WORK   OF   PAUL  245 

According  to  the  Acts,1  Paul  secured  some  converts  from 
the  Jews,  but  more  from  the  ranks  of  the  pious  Greeks,  or 
proselytes,  and  in  addition  many  prominent  women.  The 
implication  is  that  the  conversion  of  all  of  them  was  due  to 
Paul's  preaching  in  the  synagogue,  and  nothing  is  said  of 
his  labors  among  the  heathen,  or  of  his  preaching  to  them. 
And  yet  we  learn  from  his  own  epistles  that  the  Thessa- 
lonian  church  was  composed  very  largely,  if  not  wholly,  of 
Gentiles,2  and  the  substance  of  his  preaching  to  them  is 
indicated  in  1  Thess.  i.  9,  10,  where  nothing  is  said  about 
the  Messiahship  of  Jesus,  but  where  the  emphasis  is  laid 
upon  monotheism,  upon  the  resurrection  and  second  com- 
ing of  Jesus  the  Son  of  God,  and  upon  the  approaching 
judgment  from  which  he  delivers  his  disciples.  Evidently 
the  author  of  the  Acts  has  recorded  the  least  important 
part  of  Paul's  labors  in  Thessalonica.  If  he  began  in  the 
synagogue,  he  certainly  did  not  do  his  chief  work  there, 
but  among  the  heathen  outside  ;  and  it  was  therefore  not 
the  Messiahship  of  Jesus  that  he  chiefly  preached,  a  sub- 
ject which  could  have  little  interest  to  the  Gentiles,  but 
salvation  from  the  wrath  of  God  through  his  Son.3 

The  success  with  which  Paul  met  in  Thessalonica  aroused 
the  hostility  of  the  Jews,  just  as  it  had  some  years  before  in 
Antioch,  Iconium,  and  Lystra,  and  they  succeeded  in  setting 
the  city  in  an  uproar,  which  resulted  in  the  arrest,  not  of 
Paul  and  his  companions,  whom  they  could  not  find,  but 
of  their  host,  Jason,  and  some  of  the  new  converts.  The 
accusation  brought  against  Jason  and  the  other  brethren 
was  not  religious,  but  political.  As  in  Philippi  the  mis- 
sionaries had  been  accused  of  teaching  customs  which  it 
was  not  lawful  for  Romans  to  observe,  so  here  they  were 
accused  of  turning  the  empire4  upside  down.  But  a  worse 
offence  was  charged  upon  them  in  this  case ;  nothing  less, 
in  fact,  than  treason,  in  that  they  preached  another  king 
instead  of  Caesar.5  The  accusation  had  reference  prima- 
rily, of  course,  to  Paul  and  his  companions,  who  were  the 

1  Acts  xvii.  4.  2  i  Thess.  i.  9,  ii.  14.  «  1  Thess.  i.  10. 

4  ij  oiKov/j.tvrj  has  reference  here  evidently  not  to  the  world  in  general,  but 
specifically  to  the  Roman  world. 

5  Cf.  the  accusation  brought  against  Jesus,  Luke  xxiii.  2,  John  xix.  12,  15. 


246  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

originators  of  the  trouble  ;  but  Jason  and  the  other  brethren 
were  charged  with  participation  in  their  guilt,  in  that  they 
had  attached  themselves  to  them,  and  were  engaged  with 
them  in  plotting  a  revolution. 

The  magistrates,  after  examining  the  prisoners,  evidently 
found  that  they  were  not  as  dangerous  characters  as  they 
had  been  represented,  and  that  there  was  little  fear  that 
they  would  bring  about  a  revolution ;  for  after  they  had 
laid  bonds  upon  them  to  keep  the  peace,  they  released 
them  without  inflicting  any  punishment.  It  is  interesting 
to  notice  that  whereas  in  Philippi  the  attack  upon  Paul 
and  his  companions  had  been  made  at  the  instance  of 
heathen,  in  Thessalonica,  as  in  so  many  other  cities,  the 
Jews  were  the  instigators.  The  accuracy  of  Luke's  account 
at  this  point  has  been  widely  questioned,  especially  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  Paul  in  his  epistle  refers  to  the  afflictions 
which  his  readers  had  suffered  at  the  hands  of  their  own 
countrymen,1  and  says  nothing  about  an  attack  of  the  Jews 
of  Thessalonica  either  upon  them  or  upon  himself.  At  the 
same  time,  there  seems  to  be  a  hint  in  1  Thess.  ii.  16  that 
not  only  in  many  other  places,  but  in  Thessalonica  also, 
the  Jews  had  given  evidence  of  their  hostility  to  the  work 
of  Paul,  and  it  is  quite  possible  that  he  had  in  mind,  when 
he  wrote  the  words,  the  particular  circumstance  recorded 
by  Luke.  Moreover,  it  should  be  observed  that  the  par- 
ticular form  which  the  accusation  took,  according  to  Acts 
xvii.  7,  a  passage  whose  trustworthiness  can  hardly  be 
doubted,  suggests  that  it  emanated  from  the  Jews ;  for  it 
was  not  Jesus  as  a  king  that  Paul  preached,  but  Jesus  as 
a  Saviour,  and  it  could  have  occurred  to  no  one  but  a  Jew, 
who  thought  of  the  Messiah  always  as  a  king,  to  accuse 
Paul  of  proclaiming  another  sovereign  instead  of  Caesar. 

Luke's  account  of  Paul's  work  in  Thessalonica  is  very 
meagre.  Had  we  no  other  source,  we  might  suppose  that 
he  remained  there  only  three  weeks  and  that  he  preached 
the  Gospel  only  in  the  synagogue.  We  should  hardly 
gather  from  the  record  in  Acts  that  his  labors  in  Thessa- 
lonica were  uncommonly  effective,  especially  among  the 

1 1  Thess.  ii.  14. 


THE  WORK  OF   PAUL  247 

Gentile  population  of  the  city,  and  that  he  founded  a 
church  there  which  was  peculiarly  important  and  influen- 
tial.1 But  that  this  was  the  fact,  we  learn  from  Paul's 
two  epistles  to  the  Thessalonians,  which  were  written 
from  Corinth  only  a  few  months  after  he  left  them,  and 
which  make  it  evident  that  he  must  have  spent  some  time 
in  the  city.  In  1  Thess.  i.  7  sq.,  and  2.  Thess.  i.  4,  Paul 
declares  that  the  Christians  of  Thessalonica  had  become 
an  ensample  to  all  the  believers  in  Macedonia  and  Achaia, 
and  that  their  reputation  had  spread  even  beyond  the  con- 
fines of  those  two  provinces.  They  had  distinguished 
themselves  especially  by  their  liberality  and  generosity 
toward  all  the  brethren  of  Macedonia.2  In  fact,  Paul  speaks 
of  them  in  both  his  epistles  in  terms  of  the  highest  com- 
mendation and  warmest  affection.3  His  relations  with 
them  were  perhaps  not  quite  so  close  and  intimate  as  with 
the  Philippians;  for  his  epistles  to  them  lack  something 
of  the  peculiar  tenderness  which  makes  his  Philippian 
letter  so  beautiful,  and  yet  they  were  evidently  very  dear 
to  him,  and  their  love  and  faithfulness  and  patience  gave 
him  great  joy.  That  he  did  not  consent  to  receive  aid 
from  them,  as  from  the  Philippians,  was  not  due  to  any 
lack  of  regard  for  them,  but  only  to  the  fear  that  he  might 
set  them  a  bad  example ; 4  for  it  seems  that  in  their  absorp- 
tion in  the  approaching  return  of  Christ,  many  of  them 
were  losing  their  interest  in  the  world  about  them  and 
were  neglecting  their  daily  work  and  becoming  indolent 
and  disorderly.5  Why  circumstances  should  have  been  so 
peculiar  in  Thessalonica,  and  why  a  tendency  should  have 
appeared  there  of  which  we  discover  no  trace  in  Philippi, 
we  do  not  know.  It  is  possible  that  the  unusual  prevalence 
of  vice  and  impurity,  which  may  well  have  marked  a  great 

1  Ramsay's  emendation  of  the  text  (St.  Paul,  the  Traveller  and  Roman 
Citizen,  p.  226  sq.)  by  which  Luke  is  made  to  refer  not  only  to  Jews  and 
proselytes,  but  also  to  Greeks  (iroXXoi  rdv  ffepontvwv  nai  'EXX^wi/  TrX^^os 
TroXtf),  brings  Luke  into  better  accord  with  Paul,  but  can  hardly  be  justified 
on  sound  principles  of  criticism. 

2  1  Thess.  iv.  10. 

3  1  Thess.  i.  2  sq.,  ii.  13,  19,  iii.  6  sq.,  v.  11 ;  2  Thess.  i.  3,  ii.  13,  iii.  *. 

4  2  Thess.  iii.  9. 

5  1  Thess.  iv.  11, 12 ;  2  Thess.  iii.  6  sq. 


248  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

commercial  metropolis  like  Thessalonica,1  caused  Paul  to 
lay  special  stress  upon  the  impending  judgment  and  to 
make  it  so  prominent  as  to  overshadow  every  other  truth, 
with  the  consequence  of  leading  his  converts  to  live  in 
daily  and  hourly  expectation  of  it.  It  is  certain  at  any 
rate,  whatever  the  cause,  that  Paul  did  say  a  great  deal 
upon  the  subject  when  he  was  with  them,  and  that  their 
minds  dwelt  constantly  upon  it  after  he  was  gone.2 

From  Paul's  first  epistle  to  them  we  learn  that  the 
Thessalonians  had  asked  him  a  question,  after  he  had  left 
them,  touching  the  fate  of  the  brethren  that  died  before 
the  return  of  Christ.3  Evidently  they  had  originally  be- 
lieved that  Christ  would  come  so  soon  that  they  would 
all  be  alive  to  greet  him,  and  to  enter  the  kingdom  which 
he  was  to  establish.  But  as  time  went  on,  some  of  their 
number  passed  away  and  yet  Christ  tarried.  Were  they 
then  to  be  deprived  of  the  privilege  of  receiving  the  Lord 
when  he  should  come  and  sharing  with  him  in  his  joy  and 
glory?  This  question  Paul  answers  in  1  Thess.  iv.  13  sq., 
telling  his  readers  that  those  who  have  fallen  asleep  in 
Jesus  will  rise  again  at  his  coming  and  be  forever  with 
him,  so  that  those  who  remain  alive  until  that  time  will 
have  no  advantage  over  their  brethren  that  have  fallen 
asleep.  That  Paul  found  it  necessary  to  instruct  the 
Thessalonians  upon  the  subject  of  the  resurrection,  and 
even  to  bring  proof  in  support  of  it,4  is  a  very  significant 
fact.  It  is  evident  in  the  light  of  this  passage,  read  in 
connection  with  1  Cor.  xv.  12  sq.,  that  the  resurrection  of 
believers  at  the  return  of  Christ  was  not  regarded  by  him 
as  one  of  the  primary  truths  of  his  Gospel,  but  that  it 
occupied  a  subordinate  place  both  in  his  thought  and  in  his 
teaching.  That  the  death  of  the  individual  soul  with 
Christ  unto  the  flesh  and  his  resurrection  with  him  to  the 
new  life  in  the  Spirit,  was  fundamental  in  his  thinking, 
and  that  he  always  emphasized  it  as  the  very  heart  of  his 

1  Cf.  1  Thess.  iv.  3  sq. 

2  Cf.  1  Thess.  i.  10,  iii.  13,  iv.  6,  13  sq.,  v.  2  sq. ;  2  Thess.  ii.  1  sq. 
8  1  Thess.  iv.  13. 

4  1  Thess.  iv.  14. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  249 

Gospel,  there  can  be  no  doubt ; l  but  the  final  resur- 
rection of  the  believer  in  a  new  spiritual  body  was  of 
minor  importance  and  was  apparently  discussed  by  him 
as  a  rule  only  in  response  to  the  questions  of  his  con- 
verts.2 

Though  Paul  evidently  remained  quite  a  while  in  Thes- 
salonica,  it  is  clear  from  1  Thess.  ii.  IT  that  he  was  com- 
pelled to  leave  the  city  before  he  wished  to,  and  under 
circumstances  which  made  him  fear  for  the  permanence 
of  his  work  and  for  the  steadfastness  of  his  new  converts. 
A  persecution  had  apparently  broken  out  which  made  it 
necessary  for  him  to  depart  in  haste,  and  which  after  his 
departure  fell  heavily  upon  the  Christians  whom  he  left 
behind.  It  may  be  that  his  flight  was  misinterpreted  by 
some  of  the  brethren  as  an  act  of  cowardice  on  his  part, 
and  that  it  was  made  a  ground  of  complaint  against  him. 
At  any  rate,  he  felt  it  necessary  later  to  defend  himself 
against  the  accusation  of  being  a  covetous,  ambitious,  and 
selfish  man,  who  preached  the  Gospel  not  in  sincerity,  but 
in  guile  and  hypocrisy,  and  with  an  eye  not  to  the  advan- 
tage of  the  Thessalonians,  but  to  his  own  glory  and  gain.3 
If  the  persecution  was  begun  at  the  instance  of  the  Jews,4 
it  was  at  any  rate  carried  on  by  the  Gentiles,5  and  its 
severity  was  so  great  that  Paul  feared  that  the  Thessa- 
lonian  disciples  might  lose  their  courage  and  renounce 
their  faith.  It  was  this  fear  that  led  him  to  desire  so 
earnestly,  and  more  than  once,  to  return  to  Thessalonica 
and  see  his  converts  face  to  face.6  Finding  it  for  some 
reason  impossible  to  do  so,  perhaps  because  his  friends  had 
given  bonds  for  his  continued  absence,  he  sent  Timothy 
from  Athens  to  establish  and  comfort  them  and  to  bring 

1  That  Paul  had  taught  this  great  central  truth  in  Thessalonica  as  well  as 
elsewhere  is  suggested  by  1  Thess.  v.  10  (cf.  also  i.  10). 

2  So  both  in  1  Thessalonians  and  1  Corinthians.     The  passage  upon  the 
resurrection  in  1  Thessalonians  can  therefore  hardly  be  urged  as  a  proof  that 
Paul  was  compelled  to  leave  Thessalonica  before  he  had  completed  the  instruc- 
tion which  he  was  in  the  habit  of  imparting  to  his  new  converts.    There  is  no 
reason  to  suppose  that  the  subject  of  the  final  resurrection  of  believers  would 
have  been  discussed  more  fully  by  him  had  he  remained  longer. 

3  1  Thess.  ii.  1-12.  5  i  Thess.  ii.  14. 

4  As  reported  in  Acts  xvii.  5  sq.  6  1  Thess.  ii.  17, 


250  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

him  news  concerning  their  state.1  Timothy  upon  his 
return  gave  Paul  a  most  cheering  report  of  their  patience 
and  faithfulness,  and  of  their  love  for  him.2  At  the  same 
time  he  informed  him  of  the  existence  of  certain  evils  within 
the  church.  The  prevalent  heathen  vices  of  impurity  and 
lust,3  against  which  Paul  had  preached  while  he  was 
in  Thessalonica,  were  all  too  rife  among  them,  and  the  un- 
healthful  tendency  to  neglect  their  accustomed  avocations 
under  the  influence  of  their  belief  in  the  speedy  return 
of  Christ  was  abroad  and  was  causing  unfavorable  com- 
ment among  those  without  the  church.4  It  would  seem 
also  that  the  Thessalonian  Christians  were  not  entirely 
free  from  quarrels  and  divisions,  and  that"  there  was  a 
tendency  on  the  part  of  some  to  treat  the  leaders  of  the 
church  with  disrespect  and  to  disregard  their  counsels,5  a 
tendency  which  was  entirely  natural  where  enthusiasm 
and  fanaticism  had  such  play.  On  the  other  hand,  in 
opposition  to  the  uncontrolled  enthusiasm  and  fanaticism 
of  some  of  the  disciples,  there  were  others  who  were  in- 
clined to  look  with  disfavor  upon  all  manifestations  of  the 
Spirit,  and  to  "despise  prophesyings." 6  Timothy  also 
informed  Paul  without  doubt  of  the  accusations  against 
him,  which  were  upon  the  lips  of  some  of  the  disciples, 
and  repeated  the  question  asked  by  the  Thessalonians 
touching  the  resurrection  of  the  dead. 

In  view  of  all  these  circumstances  Paul  felt  impelled  to 
write  them  his  first  epistle.7  In  it  he  gives  expression 
to  his  continued  joy  and  confidence  in  them,  exhorts  them 
to  increased  fidelity,  admonishes  them  to  eschew  the  vices 
and  to  avoid  the  evil  tendencies  which  were  abroad  among 
them,  defends  himself  and  his  own  conduct  at  considerable 
length,  and  answers  their  inquiry  concerning  the  resurrec- 
tion in  the  way  already  described.  The  epistle  seems  to 
have  accomplished  its  purpose  at  least  in  part;  for  we  hear 
nothing  more  of  attacks  upon  him  or  of  criticisms  of  his 
motives,  nor  do  the  Thessalonians  seem  to  have  needed 
any  farther  instruction  concerning  the  resurrection  of  the 

1  1  Thess.  iii.  1  sq.    «  1  Thess.  iv.  4, 5.        «  1  Thess.  v.  12-14.      i  i  Thess.  iii.  6 

2  1  Thess.  iii.  6  sq.    *  1  Thess.  iv.  11, 12.    6  i  Thess.  v.  20. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  251 

dead.  But  in  one  respect  the  epistle  failed  to  produce  the 
effect  intended.  Some  of  the  disciples  still  neglected  their 
ordinary  avocations  in  their  expectation  of  the  immediate 
return  of  the  Lord.  Paul  therefore  wrote  them  a  second 
epistle,  designed  to  put  a  stop  to  such  unhealthy  fanati- 
cism. After  commending  them  for  their  patience  and 
faithfulness,  and  encouraging  and  exhorting  them  as  he 
had  in  his  first  epistle,  he  plunged  in  chapter  two  into  the 
main  subject.  He  had  thought  when  he  wrote  before  that 
an  exhortation  to  live  soberly  and  to  perform  their  daily 
duties  with  faithfulness  and  diligence  was  all  that  was 
necessary  in  the  premises,  and  he  took  for  granted  that 
the  Thessalonians  did  not  need  instruction  respecting  the 
time  and  season  of  the  consummation.1  But  he  saw  now 
that  it  was  their  belief,  that  the  times  were  ripe  and  that 
Christ's  return  might  be  expected  at  any  moment,  that 
was  unsettling  the  minds  of  so  many  of  them,  and  he  there- 
fore called  attention  in  his  second  epistle  to  the  fact  that 
some  time  must  yet  elapse  before  the  consummation  could 
take  place,  and  consequently  it  would  not  do  to  act  as  if  it 
were  already  here.  He  had  told  them  so,  it  seems,  while 
he  was  with  them,2  and  he  therefore  assumed  that  they 
were  aware  of  it  when  he  wrote  his  first  epistle  ;  but  it  had 
evidently  not  made  sufficient  impression  upon  them  and 
he  found  it  necessary  to  repeat,  doubtless  in  greater  detail 
and  with  the  addition  of  some  new  particulars,  the  sub- 
stance of  what  he  had  already  said.  Antichrist,  he  re- 
minds them,  must  appear  before  the  Messiah  himself  can 
return,  but  Antichrist  cannot  appear  until  he  that  restrain- 
eth  has  been  taken  out  of  the  way. 

Much  ingenuity  has  been  expended  in  the  attempt  to 
interpret  this  apocalypse  and  to  discover  the  persons  or 
events  to  which  Paul  refers  in  such  mysterious  terms,  but 
the  attempt  is  vain.  The  apocalypse  is  cast  largely  in  Old 
Testament  form,  and  it  is  probable  that  he  had  no  concrete 
or  definite  person  or  appearance  in  mind  when  he  referred  to 
the  "  man  of  sin,"  but  that  he  shared  with  the  Jews  in  gen- 
eral the  belief  in  the  final  outbreak  of  the  powers  opposed 

1 1  Thess.  v.  1.  2  2  Thess.  ii.  5. 


252  TtiE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

to  the  Messiah  under  the  lead  of  Antichrist.1  And  as  that 
outbreak,  though  apparently  already  begun,2  had  evidently 
not  yet  reached  its  climax  and  no  one  corresponding  to 
the  traditional  conception  of  Antichrist  had  yet  appeared, 
he  still  looked  forward  to  his  advent.  That  Paul  had  in 
mind  some  definite  historical  person  or  power  in  speaking 
of  that  "  which  now  restraineth," 3  is  very  probable,  but 
we  have  no  means  of  determining  to  whom  or  what  he 
referred.  That  he  may  have  meant  the  authority  of  the 
Roman  state,  the  protection  of  whose  laws  was  enjoyed  by 
the  Christians  as  well  as  by  other  men,4  is  possible  but  far 
from  certain.  But  however  the  details  of  Paul's  apoca- 
lypse may  be  interpreted,  it  is  clear  that  though  he  be- 
lieved that  the  consummation  was  not  far  distant  and 
apparently  expected  to  live  to  witness  it  himself,5  he  was 
nevertheless  convinced  that  an  interval  of  greater  or  less 
duration  must  elapse  before  the  end  came,  and  it  was  this 
fact  that  he  was  especially  concerned  to  emphasize  in  his 
second  letter  to  the  Thessalonians,  for  he  saw  that  they 
especially  needed  to  be  reminded  of  it.  Under  ordinary 
circumstances  there  would  have  been  more  reason  for  him 
to  emphasize  the  nearness  of  the  parousia,  and  the  duty  of 
constant  watchfulness  in  view  of  its  approach,  as  he  had 
done  in  his  previous  epistle.  But  the  conditions  in  the 
Thessalonian  church  were  peculiar,  and  those  conditions 
account  for  the  difference  between  his  two  letters,  and  for 
the  fact  that  in  the  second  of  them  he  gives  expression  to 
views  that  appear  nowhere  else  in  his  writings. 

The  authenticity  of  2  Thessalonians  is  widely  doubted, 
in  part  because  of  this  very  fact,  in  part  because  of  the 
striking  similarity  in  other  respects  between  it  and  the 
earlier  epistle.  But  though  it  is  beset  with  serious  diffi- 
culties, its  style  is  genuinely  Pauline,  and  when  read  in 
the  light  of  the  conditions  that  existed  among  those  to 
whom  it  was  addressed,  the  grounds  for  asserting  its  Paul- 
ine authorship  appear  weightier  than  any  that  can  be  urged 

1  See  Schurer,  I.e.  II.  p.  448  (Eng.  Trans.,  Div.  II.  Vol.  II.  p.  164). 

2  "The  mystery  of  lawlessness  doth  already  work  "  (2  Thess.  ii.  7). 
8  2  Thess.  ii.  6,  rb  Ka.rt\ov,  vs.  7,  6  Kartx^v. 

<  Cf.  Rom.  xiii.  1  sq.  *  1  Thess.  iv.  11, 


THE  WORK  OF   PAUL  253 

against  it.  The  differences  have  been  already  accounted 
for;  the  resemblances  are  sufficiently  explained  if  it  be 
assumed  that  the  second  epistle  was  written  but  a  short 
time  after  the  first,  while  the  affairs  both  in  Thessalonica 
and  Corinth  remained  practically  unchanged  and  while 
Paul,  as  well  as  the  Thessalonians,  were  still  enduring 
afflictions  and  trials.1 

It  seems  from  2  Thess.  ii.  2,  that  those  disciples  of 
Thessalonica  who  were  insisting  that  the  parousia  was  at 
hand  were  appealing  in  defence  of  their  view  to  a  letter 
bearing  Paul's  name ;  but  as  Paul  was  not  conscious  of 
having  written  anything  to  support  their  opinion,  he  leaped 
to  the  conclusion  that  they  were  making  use  of  a  forged 
epistle,  and  he  was  therefore  careful  to  call  attention  at  the 
close  of  2  Thessalonians  to  his  autograph  signature,  -which 
guaranteed  the  genuineness  of  all  his  letters.  It  is  hardly 
probable  that  Paul's  surmise  was  correct,  for  it  is  difficult 
to  suppose  that  any  one  would  have  ventured  to  impose 
a  forged  epistle  upon  the  Thessalonian  church  so  soon 
after  his  departure ;  and  the  fact  is  that  the  passage  in 
1  Thessalonians,  where  Paul  emphasizes  the  duty  of 
watchfulness,2  might  easily  be  interpreted  in  such  a  way 
as  to  furnish  a  confirmation  of  the  belief  in  question,  and 
it  is  very  likely  that  good  use  was  made  of  it. 

From  Thessalonica,  Paul  and  his  companions  travelled 
westward  to  Beroea,  a  smaller  and  less  important  city  than 
Thessalonica,  situated  in  the  third  of  the  four  districts 
into  which  Macedonia  was  divided.  Although  in  Acts 
xvii.  10,  Paul  and  Silas  alone  are  mentioned,  we  learn 
from  vs.  14  that  Timothy  was  also  with  them,  and  though 
nothing  is  said  of  his  presence  in  Philippi  and  Thessa- 
lonica, various  references  in  Paul's  epistles  indicate  that 

1  In  defence  of  the  genuineness  of  2  Thessalonians,  see  the  New  Testament 
introductions  of  Weiss  and  Jiilicher,  and  especially  Bornemann  in  Meyer's 
Commentary,  5th  and  6th  eds.    The  authenticity  of  1  Thessalonians  has  also 
been  doubted  by  many  scholars,  but  is  now  generally  recognized.    1  Thess. 
iv.  17,  with  its  implication  that  Paul  expected  to  live  until  the  return  of 
Christ,  is  alone  enough  to  prove  that  the  epistle  cannot  have  been  written  after 
his  death.    But  the  truth  is  that  the  Pauline  character  of  the  epistle  as  a 
whole  is  abundantly  evident. 

2  1  Thess.  v.  1-11. 


254  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

he  was  one  of  the  party  in  both  those  cities  as  well.1 
Of  Paul's  work  in  Beroea  we  know  only  what  is  told  us  in 
Acts  xvii.  10-14.  According  to  that  passage,  he  met  with 
better  success  among  the  Jews  than  he  had  in  Thessa- 
lonica,  and  secured  many  converts  from  the  ranks  both  of 
Jews  and  Gentiles.  The  contrast  drawn  between  the  re- 
ceptivity of  the  Bercean  and  Thessalonian  Jews  implies 
the  use  of  an  older  source  and  argues  for  the  general  trust- 
worthiness of  the  account.  Some  years  later,  when  Paul 
went  up  to  Jerusalem  with  the  collection  for  the  Mother 
Church,  one  of  his  Beroean  converts  accompanied  him  upon 
his  journey.2  His  presence  in  the  party  testifies  to  the 
continued  existence  of  the  church  of  Beroea,  and  shows 
that  it  shared  with  Paul's  other  churches  in  contributing 
to  the  necessities  of  the  saints  of  Jerusalem. 

Though  Luke  mentions  Paul's  work  in  only  three  Mace- 
donian cities,  it  is  evident  from  1  Thess.  i.  7  sq.  that 
Christianity  was  already  widespread  in  the  province  at 
the  time  he  wrote,  and  it  may  well  be  that  he  did  consid- 
erable missionary  work  outside  of  Philippi,  Thessalonica, 
and  Beroea  of  which  our  sources  tell  us  nothing.  We 
learn  from  Rom.  xv.  19  that  he  had  preached  the  Gospel 
as  far  west  as  Illyricum  before  the  year  53,  and  it  is  proba- 
ble that  he  did  so  at  this  time ;  for  when  he  passed  through 
Macedonia  again  on  his  way  to  Corinth,3  he  was  in  so 
anxious  a  state  of  mind  respecting  the  Corinthian  church  4 
that  he  could  hardly  have  turned  aside  to  undertake  an 
extended  evangelistic  tour  in  a  new  country,  and  there 
is  no  other  occasion  so  far  as  we  know  when  he  can  have 
gone  thither.  At  any  rate,  Paul  evidently  spent  a  long 
time  in  Macedonia  and  accomplished  a  large  and  important 
work  there.  His  Macedonian  labors  were  particularly  suc- 
cessful, and  the  churches  which  he  founded  were  not  only 
peculiarly  dear  to  him,  but  enjoyed  remarkable  exemption 
from  the  internal  troubles  which  beset  some  of  his  other 
churches.  They  were  subjected  to  persecutions,  it  is  true, 
for  many  years,  but  their  development  was  not  impeded 

1  See  above,  p.  241.  8  Acts  xx.  1. 

2  Acts  xx.  4.  *  Cf.  2  Cor.  vii.  5  sq. 


THE  WORK   OF   PAUL  255 

by  the  influence  of  Judaizing  tendencies  and  their  conse- 
cration to  Christ,  their  spirituality,  their  zeal  for  the  ad- 
vancement of  the  Gospel,  their  love  and  their  unselfish 
devotion  to  the  brethren,  were  all  very  marked  and  caused 
Paul  the  profoundest  joy  and  gratitude.  Nowhere,  in  fact, 
does  his  preaching  seem  to  have  borne  richer  fruit  than  in 
Macedonia,  and  of  none  of  his  churches  does  he  speak  in 
terms  of  deeper  satisfaction.1 

In  no  other  part  of  Paul's  missionary  field  do  we  get  a 
clearer  glimpse  of  the  way  in  which  he  was  accustomed  to 
bring  Christianity  to  the  knowledge  of  the  Gentiles,  and 
to  gather  disciples  from  among  them.  He  evidently  did 
not  go  about  through  the  cities  of  the  province  with  a 
flourish  of  trumpets,  summoning  all  the  inhabitants  to  re- 
pentance and  proclaiming  from  the  housetops  the  kingdom 
of  God ;  but  he  sought  to  win  converts  by  direct  personal 
contact,  forming  acquaintances  as  opportunity  offered, 
very  likely  first  of  all  among  those  of  his  own  trade,2 
laboring  with  them  for  his  daily  bread,3  and  telling  them 
his  message  one  by  one  until  he  had  succeeded  in  gather- 
ing about  himself  a  little  circle  which  became  the  nucleus 
of  a  church.  It  was  through  this  quiet  hand-to-hand  work 
that  he  doubtless  accomplished  most,  and  not  through 
public  preaching,  whether  in  the  synagogues  or  elsewhere. 
The  fact  that  the  author  of  the  Acts  always  lays  chief 
stress  upon  his  public  activity,  has  resulted  in  a  wide  mis- 
conception of  the  ordinary  method  of  the  Gospel's  spread, 
and  has  led  many  to  picture  the  beginnings  of  Christianity 
in  the  various  cities  of  the  empire  in  an  altogether  too 
official  and  artificial  way.  Christianity  did  not  appear  in 
the  cities  where  Paul  labored  as  a  great  public  movement, 
involving  religious  and  political  consequences  of  civic  or 
national  proportions,  but  as  a  leaven  working  quietly  for 
the  conversion  of  one  household  after  another,  and  bind- 
ing them  all  together  in  the  bonds  of  a  common  faith  and 
a  common  hope.  In  these  Gentile  churches  of  which  we 

1  Cf .  not  only  Philippians  and  1  and  2  Thessalonians,  but  also  2  Cor.  viii. 
Isq. 

2  Cf.  Acts  xviii.  2.  3  Cf.  1  Thess.  ii.  9 ;  2  Thess.  iii.  8. 


256  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

catch  glimpses  in  Paul's  epistles,  we  have  a  beautiful  par- 
allel to  the  early  Jewish  church  of  Jerusalem  :  the  same 
sense  of  belonging  to  a  heavenly  kingdom,  the  same  sepa- 
rateness  from  the  world,  the  same  closeness  of  fellowship 
with  each  other,  the  same  intimate  family  life,  and  the 
same  unsparing  generosity  to  those  in  need. 

Paul  visited  Macedonia  on  two  subsequent  occasions,  in 
52  A.D.  on  his  way  from  Ephesus  to  Corinth,1  and  again  a 
few  months  later  on  his  way  back  from  Corinth  to  Jerusa- 
lem.2 No  particulars  of  the  latter  visit  have  been  pre- 
served, but  the  condition  of  the  Macedonian  Christians  at 
the  time  of  the  former  visit  is  referred  to  in  the  Second 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  It  appears  that  they  were 
still  suffering  persecution3  and  that  Paul  himself  was 
suffering  with  them.4  It  appears,  moreover,  that  they  were 
very  poor  in  this  world's  goods,5  but  that  their  generosity 
was  great,  and  that  they  contributed  voluntarily  and  even 
beyond  their  means  to  the  collection  which  Paul  was 
gathering  for  the  church  of  Jerusalem.6  They  appointed  a 
representative  to  travel  with  Paul  and  assist  him  in  the 
matter  of  the  collection,7  and  when  he  went  up  to  Jerusa- 
lem to  carry  the  contributions  of  the  churches,  there  were 
at  least  three,  or  if  the  author  of  the  "  we  "  source  was 
a  Philippian,  four  Macedonians  in  his  company.8  Acts 
xix.  29  acquaints  us  with  another  Macedonian  Christian, 
named  Gaius,  who  was  with  Paul  in  Ephesus,  and  the 
Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  with  a  number  of  others.9 

7.   THE  EVANGELIZATION  OF  ACHAIA 

Being  compelled  to  leave  Beroea  because  of  the  trouble 
caused  by  hostile  Jews  from  Thessalonica,  Paul  went 

1  Acts  xx.  1.          s  2  Cor.  viii.  1.         «  2  Cor.  viii.  2.          1  2  Cor.  viii.  18  sq. 

2  Acts  xx.  3.          •*  2  Cor.  vii.  5.          6  2  Cor.  viii.  3  sq.,  ix.  2. 

8  Acts  xx.  4.    The  three  were  Sopater,  Aristarchus,  and  Secundus.    Aris- 
tarchns  was  with  Paul  also  in  Ephesus  (Acts  xix.  29)  and  both  he  and  the 
author  of  the  "  we  "  source  accompanied  him  to  Rome  (Acts  xxvii.  2 ;  cf.  also 
Col.  iv.  10,  and  Philemon  24). 

9  Epaphroditus,  Clement,  Synzygus,  Euodia,  and  Syntyche.    The  Demas, 
who  is  mentioned  in  Col.  iv.  14,  2  Tim.  iv.  10,  and  Philemon  24;  may  also 
fcave  been  a  Macedonian  of  Thessalonica  (cf.  2  Tim.  iv.  10). 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  257 

down  to  the  coast,  apparently  undecided  where  to  go 
next.1  He  must  have  had  Achaia,  as  well  as  Macedonia, 
in  mind  when  he  crossed  over  into  Europe,  but  he  appar- 
ently did  not  regard  his  work  in  Macedonia  as  finished, 
and  he  did  not  wish  to  leave  it.  But  the  important 
centres  seemed  closed  to  him  at  the  moment,  and  he 
therefore  made  up  his  mind  to  pass  on  to  Achaia,  the  next 
province  to  the  south,  and  begin  work  there.  Making  his 
way  by  sea  to  Athens,  the  first  large  city  of  the  province, 
he  sent  back  word  to  Silas  and  Timothy  to  join  him  at 
once.  The  account  in  Acts  seems  to  imply  that  Paul  left 
Athens  before  they  reached  the  city,  and  went  on  to 
Corinth,  where  they  finally  overtook  him.2  But  from 
1  Thess.  iii.  1  sq.  we  learn  that  Timothy  was  actually  with 
Paul  in  Athens,  and  that  Paul  sent  him  thence  to  Thessa- 
lonica,  whence  he  returned  to  the  apostle  after  the  latter 
had  reached  Corinth.  The  two  accounts  are  not  absolutely 
contradictory,  for  Luke,  though  he  fails  to  mention  Timo- 
thy's visit  to  Athens,  does  not  expressly  exclude  it ;  but 
it  must  at  any  rate  be  recognized  that  he  could  hardly 
have  written  as  he  did,  had  he  known  of  Timothy's  arrival 
in  Athens,  and  of  his  journey  to  Thessalonica  to  which 
Paul  refers.  Nevertheless,  though  his  account  betrays  a 
lack  of  familiarity  with  some  of  the  events  that  occurred 
during  this  period,  there  are  certain  striking  features  in 
his  report  of  Paul's  stay  in  Athens  which  can  be  explained 
only  on  the  supposition  that  he  had  in  his  hands  an  older 
document  which  he  followed  in  the  main  quite  closely. 
Though  he  states 3  that  Paul  preached  in  the  synagogue 
to  the  Jews  and  pious  Gentiles,  he  departs  from  his  usual 
custom  in  laying  the  emphasis  not  upon  his  work  among 
them,  but  upon  his  work  among  the  heathen.  And  yet 
his  account  of  that  work  is  not  drawn  in  such  colors  as 
one  might  suppose  he  would  employ,  if  he  invented  the 
situation  in  order  to  provide  an  appropriate  setting  for  a 
presentation  of  Paul's  preaching  to  the  heathen  as  he 
understood  it.  It  is  clear  that  he  was  keenly  alive  to  the 
dramatic  possibilities  of  the  position  in  which  the  apostle 

i  Acts  xvii.  14,  2Actsxviii.5.  8  Acts  xvii.  17. 


258  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE 

found  himself  placed,1  and  yet  he  refrained  from  making 
such  use  of  them  as  a  writer  might  have  been  expected  to 
who  was  without  any  information  as  to  the  actual  events 
of  the  stay  in  Athens,  or  who  chose  to  disregard  the  in- 
formation which  he  had.  The  implication  that  in  Athens, 
the  ancestral  home  of  Greek  philosophy  and  the  intellect- 
ual centre  of  the  Hellenic  world,  Paul  had  no  intention 
of  preaching  the  Gospel,  that  he  proposed  to  pass  through 
the  place  without  making  any  effort  to  bring  Christianity 
to  the  knowledge  of  its  inhabitants,  and  that  his  stay  in 
the  city  and  his  proclamation  of  the  Gospel  there  were 
due  solely  to  the  delay  in  the  arrival  of  Silas  and  Timothy, 
can  be  explained  only  on  the  assumption  that  the  author 
was  following  an  earlier  authority.  That  Paul  should 
recognize  the  inaccessibility  of  the  Athenians  to  such  a 
message  as  he  had  to  bring  them,  and  should  think  it  not 
worth  while  to  undertake  regular  missionary -work  among 
them,  was  entirely  natural,  but  it  is  inconceivable  that  such 
a  view  of  the  matter  should  suggest  itself  to  a  later  writer. 
Athens  must  seem  to  him  just  the  place  where  Paul  would 
be  most  eager  to  proclaim  the  truth  of  Christianity  and 
to  expose  the  sophistries  of  Greek  thought.  It  may  be 
remarked  still  farther,  that  the  statement  that  he  was 
finally  led  to  break  silence  not  by  the  false  philosophy 
that  he  heard  taught  in  the  city,  but  by  the  idolatry  that 
was  practised  all  about  him,  must  have  emanated  not  from 
an  idealizing  historian  of  a  later  day,  but  from  a  writer 
who  was  well  acquainted  with  the  local  conditions  that 
prevailed  at  the  time  Paul  visited  Athens.  Moreover,  the 
curious  piece  of  information  that  the  heathen  supposed 
that  Paul  was  preaching  two  gods,  Jesus  and  Resurrec- 
tion,2 can  hardly  have  been  invented  by  Luke ;  while  his 

1  Compare  his  references  to  the  Epicurean  and  Stoic  philosophers  in  vs.  18; 
to  the  Areopagus  in  vss.  19  and  22  ;  and  to  the  character  of  the  Athenians 
in  vs.  21. 

2  Acts  xvii.  18.    A  different  interpretation  has  been  put  upon  this  passage 
by  some  commentators,  but  in  view  of  the  collocation  of  the  two  words  (rbv 
'lyarovv  teal  rrjv  &vd<rTa<nv)  and  the  use  of  the  article  with  both,  and  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  Paul  was  supposed  to  be  a  preacher  of  more  than  one 
strange  god,  most  scholars  adopt  the  view  indicated  above.    Peculiar  as  it 
may  seem,  it  is  in  fact  not  at  all  strange  that  the  Athenians,  with  their 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  259 

report  of  the  meagreness  of  the  results  accomplished  is 
hardly  what  we  should  expect  if  he  was  merely  romancing. 
Here,  if  anywhere,  in  the  stronghold  of  Pagan  thought 
and  worship,  the  Gospel  must  vindicate  its  divine  power. 
But  only  a  few  are  said  to  have  been  converted,  and  only 
two  of  them  are  named,  one  a  man,  Dionysius  the  Areopa- 
gite,  and  the  other  a  woman,  Damaris.1 

An  examination  of  the  speech  which  Paul  is  reported  to 
have  made  in  Athens  leads  to  the  same  conclusion  touch- 
ing the  general  trustworthiness  of  the  account.  His 
skilful  use  of  one  of  the  many  altars  "to  an  unknown 
god,"  which  we  know  existed  in  the  city,  as  the  text  of 
his  discourse,  is  too  characteristic  to  have  been  invented, 
and  the  general  tenor  of  the  speech  is  entirely  in  line  with 
his  preaching  to  the  Gentiles  in  Thessalonica,  as  exhibited 
in  his  epistles  to  the  Thessalonians  written  only  a  few 
months  later.  Both  in  Athens  and  in  Thessalonica  he 
preached  one  living  and  true  God,  who  would  yet  judge 
the  world  by  him  whom  he  had  raised  from  the  dead.2 
It  is  true  that  the  Athenian  speech  entirely  lacks  the 
great  characteristic  features  of  the  Pauline  theology  which 
are  revealed  in  his  chief  epistles,  and  traces  of  which 
appear  even  in  the  letters  to  the  Thessalonians ;  and  it  is 
also  true  that  there  is  no  reference  in  it,  as  in  many  pas- 
sages in  the  latter,  to  Jesus  Christ  as  a  Saviour,  and  to  the 
comfort  involved  for  the  disciples  in  his  second  coming. 
And  yet  the  omission  of  such  truths  in  a  discourse  deliv- 
ered under  the  peculiar  circumstances  in  which  Paul  found 
himself  placed  in  Athens  ought  not  to  occasion  surprise. 
The  author  of  the  Acts  does  not  exaggerate  when  he  says 
that  Paul  found  the  city  "  full  of  idols."  Pausanias  tells 
us  that  there  were  more  gods  in  Athens  than  in  all  the 
rest  of  the  country,  and  the  Satirist  Petronius  declares  that 

tendency  to  multiply  divinities  and  to  deify  all  the  forces  and  movements 
of  nature,  should  have  understood  Paul  to  refer  to  two  gods,  the  one  male, 
the  other  female. 

1  Very  likely  the  document  which  Luke  was  using  reported  no  conversions, 
and  he  inserted  the  names  of  Dionysius  and  Damaris  on  the  basis  of  tradi- 
tion;   for  Paul  calls  the  household  of  Stephanas  the  firstfruits  of  Achaia 
(ICor.  xvi.  15). 

2  Cf.  1  Thess.'  i.  9, 10,  iii.  13,  iv.  6,  v.  2  sq.;  2  Thess.  i.  7  sq.,  ii.  12, 


260  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

it  was  easier  to  find  a  god  in  Athens  than  a  man.  It  is  not 
strange,  therefore,  that  Paul's  spirit  was  provoked  within 
him  as  he  looked  about  him.  To  him  the  beauty  which 
was  scattered  everywhere  in  such  profusion  meant  nothing. 
With  his  native  Jewish  prejudice  against  the  plastic  art  in 
all  its  forms,  he  could  see  in  the  marvellous  works  of  art 
that  adorned  not  the  Acropolis  alone,  but  all  the  streets 
and  squares  of  the  city,  nothing  of  loveliness  or  of  charm. 
To  him  the  fairest  statues  were  only  idols,  and  the  most 
beautiful  temples  only  the  dwelling-places  of  false  gods. 
It  was  to  be  expected  that  in  the  midst  of  such  surround- 
ings the  peculiar  and  distinctive  truths  of  Christianity 
upon  which  his  mind  was  most  accustomed  to  dwell 
should  seem  to  him  for  the  moment  of  minor  importance 
in  comparison  with  the  great  fundamental  truth  which 
Christianity  shared  with  Judaism,  the  truth  that  there  is 
only  one  living  and  true  God,  who  is  not  "  like  unto  gold 
or  silver  or  stone  graven  by  art  and  device  of  man."  In 
fact,  such  a  discourse  as  that  ascribed  to  Paul  in  Acts  xvii. 
is  exactly  what  we  should  expect  from  him  under  the  cir- 
cumstances. It  would  be  difficult,  indeed,  if  not  impos- 
sible, to  suggest  any  other  line  of  thought  better  adapted  to 
the  situation  in  which  he  was  placed,  and  more  likely  to 
have  been  followed  by  him.1 

1  Though  in  view  of  these  considerations  it  can  hardly  be  doubted  that 
Paul  delivered  an  address  in  Athens  upon  the  subject  indicated,  and  that  the 
general  outline  of  that  address  is  accurately  reproduced  in  Luke's  account, 
there  are  words  in  vss.  28  and  29  which  it  is  possible  are  Luke's  and  not  Paul's. 
Paul  seems  not  to  have  thought  of  the  unredeemed  man  as  possessed  of  a  con- 
stitution like  God's,  but  rather  to  have  emphasized  his  unlikeness  to  God, 
drawing  a  sharp  contrast  between  his  fleshly  nature  and  the  spiritual  nature 
of  the  Divine  Being.  It  is  not  altogether  easy  to  reconcile  the  statement  that 
we  are  God's  offspring,  and  the  inference  that  is  drawn  from  it  in  vs.  29,  with 
such  a  passage  as  1  Cor.  xv.  47  sq.  It  is  not  impossible  that  as  Luke  frequently 
introduced  into  the  speeches  which  he  recorded  appropriate  quotations  from 
the  Old  Testament,  so  he  may  here  have  introduced  the  familiar  passage  from 
the  Greek  poet  Aratus,  which  Paul's  previous  words  might  naturally  suggest 
to  him,  without  perceiving  that  he  thus  gave  to  Paul's  thought  a  turn  which 
Paul  himself  had  not  intended.  With  the  exception  of  this  passage  there  is 
nothing  in  the  address  that  need  cause  any  difficulty  ;  and  there  is  no  reason, 
therefore,  for  questioning  the  trustworthiness  of  the  discourse  as  a  whole. 

Verse  30,  which  has  been  objected  to  on  the  ground  that  it  contradicts  Paul's 
judgment  of  the  heathen  expressed  in  Rom.  i.,  finds  a  parallel  in  Rom.  iii.  25. 
The  "overlooking"  of  the  times  of  ignorance  which  is  here  referred  to  does 


THE   WORK   OF  PAUL  261 

That  Paul's  preaching  in  Athens  was  attended  with 
small  results  is  just  what  we  should  expect.  Luke  has 
correctly  characterized  the  Athenians  in  vs.  21.  Since  the 
time  they  had  lost  their  political  independence,  their  inter- 
est had  centred  increasingly  in  philosophical  and  religious 
questions,  and  they  devoted  the  greater  part  of  their  time 
and  energy  to  the  discussion  of  such  themes.  Commer- 
cially and  industrially  Athens  was  at  this  time  a  place  of  no 
importance,  but  it  was  the  home  of  a  great  university  and 
the  resort  of  philosophers  of  all  schools.  It  was,  in  fact, 
the  intellectual  Mecca  of  the  world.  At  the  same  time  it 
was  probably  the  most  religious  city  in  the  empire.  The 
Athenians  were  widely  famed  for  the  multitude  of  deities 
whom  they  worshipped,  and  for  their  hospitality  toward 
new  gods  and  new  faiths ;  and  they  were  exceedingly 
proud  of  their  reputation  in  this  respect.  Paul  therefore 
spoke  the  truth,  and  at  the  same  time  revealed  his 
wisdom  and  tact,  when  he  began  his  address  with  the 
complimentary  words :  "  Ye  men  of  Athens,  I  perceive 
that  ye  are  in  every  respect  uncommonly  religious."1  But 
in  spite  of  this  conciliatory  language,  there  was  nothing  in 
Paul's  address,  in  fact  there  was  nothing  he  could  have 
said,  that  was  calculated  to  persuade  an  Athenian  audi- 
ence and  convert  them  to  the  Christian  faith.  His  audi- 
tors were  ready  enough  to  listen,  but  their  interest  in  him 
and  in  his  preaching  was  due  solely  to  curiosity  and  had 
no  practical  purpose,  and  his  appeal  to  them  to  repent  in 
view  of  the  impending  judgment  could  seem  nothing  less 
than  absurd.  But  though  the  Athenians  did  not  accept 
Christianity,  they  had  no  inclination  to  persecute  Paul  or 
give  him  trouble  of  any  kind.  There  is  no  hint  that  he 

not  imply  that  in  pre-Christian  days  God  regarded  the  idolatry  of  the  heathen 
with  indifference  or  saved  them  from  the  consequences  of  their  sins,  denounced 
so  vigorously  in  Rom.  i.,  but  simply  that  the  time  for  the  final  judgment  had 
not  come  until  now,  and  that  they  were,  therefore,  summoned  now  to  prepare 
for  it  as  they  had  not  been  before. 

It  is  a  fact  of  no  little  significance  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  address  to 
betray  the  effort  of  a  later  writer  to  put  into  Paul's  mouth  a  genuinely 
Pauline  discourse. 

1  Acts  xvii.  22.  The  translation  both  in  the  Authorized  and  Revised  Ver- 
sions does  Paul  an  injustice. 


262  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

incurred  the  suspicion  of  the  authorities  or  that  his  free- 
dom of  speech  and  conduct  was  curbed  in  any  way.1  How 
long  he  stayed  in  Athens,  we  do  not  know.  He  can  hardly 
have  remained  a  great  while,  for  he  must  have  realized 
that  little  could  be  accomplished  in  such  a  city  and  he  was 
not  the  man  to  waste  his  time.  He  probably  only  waited 
for  Timothy's  arrival  from  Beroea,  and  then,  after  despatch- 
ing him  upon  the  important  mission  to  Thessalonica,2  made 
his  way  without  delay  to  Corinth,  the  capital  and  com- 
mercial metropolis  of  the  Roman  province  of  Achaia.3 

Corinth  was  a  place  of  an  entirely  different  type  from 
Athens.  Upon  the  ruins  of  the  old  Greek  city  Julius 
Csesar  had  founded  a  colony  which  had  been  peopled  in 
the  beginning  largely  by  freedmen  from  Rome,  and  which 
still  bore  a  marked  Roman  character.  The  Greek  ele- 
ment, however,  was  naturally  strong  and  the  Greek  lan- 
guage was  commonly  used,  except  in  official  circles. 
Moreover,  there  was  the  same  love  of  wisdom  and  the 
same  pride  of  intellect  that  had  characterized  the  Greeks 
for  centuries.  Corinth  indeed,  in  spite  of  the  contempt 
felt  for  her  by  Athens  and  other  genuinely  Greek  cities, 
plumed  herself  greatly  upon  her  position  as  the  capital 
city  of  Achaia,  and  claimed  to  be  the  true  heir  of  the 
glories  of  ancient  Greece.  But  Corinth  was  not  merely 
a  Roman  and  a  Greek  city ;  the  Orient  also  was  repre- 
sented, and  the  luxury  and  licentiousness  of  the  East  ran 
riot  in  her  streets.  Corinthian  immorality  was  proverbial 
the  world  over.  The  unique  geographical  situation  of 
the  city  made  it  the  gateway  between  Orient  and  Occi- 
dent, and  through  it  passed  a  large  part  of  the  trade  of 
the  East  with  the  West.  In  it  were  gathered  people  of 
all  nationalities  and  faiths,  and  like  every  great  commercial 

1  He  was  certainly  not  brought  to  trial  as  an  offender  before  the  court  of 
the  Areopagus  or  any  other  court. 

2  1  Thess.  iii.  1. 

8  Upon  Paul's  stay  in  Athens  see  especially  Ramsay :  St.  Paul,  the  Traveller 
and  Roman  Citizen,  p.  237  sq.  Ramsay  maintains  that  Paul  made  his  famous 
speech,  not  on  the  Areopagus  or  Hill  of  Mars,  as  is  commonly  supposed,  but  in 
the  Agora  before  the  council  of  the  Areopagus,  which  was  sitting,  not  as  a 
civil  or  criminal  court,  but  as  a  university  council  to  pass  judgment  upon 
Paul's  qualifications  as  a  lecturer. 


THE    WORK   OF   PAUL  263 

centre  it  had  a  large  floating  population.  It  was  cosmo« 
politan  in  the  fullest  sense,  —  Greek,  Roman,  Oriental, — 
and  it  was  characterized  by  all  the  features  that  commonly 
mark  such  a  city.  Never  before  had  the  Gospel  been 
brought  face  to  face  with  such  extreme  woiidliness ; 
never  had  it  been  assigned  a  more  difficult  task  than  to 
make  its  way  in  such  a  city  and  among  such  a  people. 
And  it  is  probable  that  Paul  himself  had  never  had  so 
keen  a  sense  of  his  own  impotence  as  just  at  this  juncture. 
He  knew  well  enough  that  he  possessed  none  of  the  graces 
of  style  and  none  of  the  oratorical  gifts  which  were  so 
highly  prized  among  the  Greeks,  and  his  recent  experi- 
ence in  Athens  must  have  made  him  painfully  conscious 
that  he  was  not  the  kind  of  a  man  to  impress  and  attract 
the  Corinthians.1  The  contempt,  moreover,  with  which 
the  Gospel  had  been  received  by  the  Athenians  showed 
him  that  the  truths  which  he  had  preached  there,  sublime 
though  they  seemed  to  him,  were  not  such  as  to  appeal 
to  those  whom  he  would  have  to  meet  in  Corinth.  It  is 
no  wonder  that  he  approached  the  city  with  fear  and 
trembling.2  The  Gospel  was  to  be  put  to  a  supreme  test. 
If  it  could  make  headway  in  this  busy,  profligate  metropo- 
lis, if  it  could  show  itself  adapted  to  the  needs  and  equal 
to  the  demands  of  this  world  in  miniature,  its  power  to 
conquer  the  world  at  large  would  receive  such  a  demon- 
stration as  it  had  never  had. 

There  can  be  little  doubt  that  Paul's  thoughts  had  long 
been  upon  Corinth ;  that  from  the  time  he  crossed  the  ^Egean 
he  had  looked  forward  to  the  day  when  he  should  preach 
the  Gospel  at  the  meeting-place  of  East  and  West,  in  the 
very  vortex  of  worldliness  and  in  the  very  hotbed  of  vice. 
And  yet  it  is  clear  that  he  felt  it  to  be  a  crisis  not  in  his 
own  career  alone,  but  also  in  the  progress  of  the  Gospel, 
and  that  the  thought  of  it  cost  him  much  anxiety  and 
not  a  little  foreboding.  He  evidently  debated  long  and 
earnestly  regarding  the  best  method  of  approach.  Should 
he  meet  the  corrupting  and  debasing  polytheism  which  had 
full  sway  in  the  city  with  the  doctrine  of  the  one  true 

1  Cf .  2  Cor.  x.  10,  xi.  6.  2  i  Cor.  ii.  3 ;  cf .  also  Acts  xviii.  9. 


264  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

spiritual  God,  whom  he  had  preached  in  Athens  ?  Should 
he  meet  the  prevailing  licentiousness  and  debauchery 
with  Christianity's  lofty  code  of  ethics,  and  startle  the 
careless  votaries  of  pleasure  and  the  worldly-minded  devo- 
tees of  wealth  with  the  proclamation  of  an  impending 
judgment?  Or  should  he  appeal  to  the  Greeks'  instinctive 
love  of  philosophy  and  present  tbe  Gospel  "  in  persuasive 
words  of  wisdom,"  as  a  great  system  of  truth  fitted  to 
satisfy  the  intellectual  cravings  of  the  wisest  and  to 
answer  the  deepest  questions  of  the  most  thoughtful 
minds?  Any  one  of  these  courses  might  have  recom- 
mended itself  to  him.  By  any  one  of  these  methods  he 
might  have  hoped  to  secure  a  hearing  for  the  Christianity 
which  he  preached  and  to  bring  the  power  of  the  Gospel 
to  bear  upon  the  life  of  the  city.  But  he  rejected  them 
all.  Possibly  his  experience  in  Athens  had  taught  him 
something.  At  any  rate,  after  careful  deliberation  as  it 
would  seem,  he  determined  to  know  nothing  among  the 
Corinthians  save  "  Jesus  Christ  and  him  crucified."  l  He 
would  strike  at  the  very  root  of  the  matter ;  not  improve- 
ment, not  amendment,  not  reformation,  but  the  replace- 
ment of  the  life  of  the  flesh  by  the  life  of  the  Spirit.  He 
would  begin  with  that  which  was  the  very  heart  of  his  Gos- 
pel. He  would  throw  down  the  gauntlet  to  the  fleshliness 
and  corruptness  of  the  heathen  world  in  its  very  strong- 
hold, and  he  would  conquer  not  by  the  help  of  adventitious 
aids  of  any  kind,  but  by  the  power  of  the  Gospel  alone.  "As 
he  had  little  to  offer  which  could  attract  and  interest  such 
a  city  as  Corinth,  he  would  eschew  all  ordinary  methods 
of  attracting  and  interesting  those  with  whom  he  came  in 
contact,  and  would  emphasize  only  that  in  Christianity 
which  must  at  first  sight  seem  to  them  the  height  of 
human  folly  and  the  extremity  of  human  weakness.  Such 
a  course  was  characteristic  of  Paul.  The  more  he  was 
opposed,  the  more  insistent  he  became.  The  greater  the 
crisis,  the  more  determined  he  was  not  to  lower  his 
standards,  not  to  compromise  his  principles,  not  to  abate 
his  demands  in  the  slightest  degree.  The  contrast  be- 

11  Cor.  ii.  2;  cf.  1  Cor.  iii.  10. 


THE  WORK  OF  PAUL  265 

tween  his  preaching  in  Thessalonica  and  his  preaching  in 
Corinth  illustrates  this  characteristic  in  a  very  marked 
way.  There  he  began  apparently  with  the  proclamation 
of  the  living  and  true  God  and  with  the  announcement 
of  the  coining  of  his  Son  from  heaven  to  save  his  people 
from  the  impending  day  of  wrath.1  But  in  Corinth,  where 
the  conditions  were  such  that  the  Gospel  was  likely  to 
meet  with  greater  indifference  and  opposition  and  with 
less  sympathy  than  anywhere  else,  he  presented  it  in  its 
most  uncompromising  form :  Jesus  Christ  and  him  cruci- 
fied ;  which  meant  of  course  not  the  crucifixion  of  Christ 
for  his  own  sake,  but  his  crucifixion  for  man's  sake ;  man's 
death  with  Christ  unto  the  flesh  in  order  to  a  resurrec- 
tion with  him  unto  the  new  life  in  the  Spirit.2  Believing 
profoundly,  as  he  did,  that  the  life  of  the  flesh  can  be 
overcome  only  by  the  life  of  the  Spirit,  that  man  can  be 
freed  from  corruption  and  death  only  by  the  entrance  into 
him  of  the  power  of  the  divine  Christ,  he  made  up  his 
mind  that  the  true  way  to  deal  with  the  life  of  the  flesh 
in  its  grossest  and  most  degrading  manifestations,  as  it 
appeared  in  Corinth,  was  to  place  the  spiritual  life  over 
against  it  in  sharpest  contrast  and  to  deny  unequivocally 
the  power  of  anything  else  to  amend  matters  in  the  least. 
It  was  not  a  new  Gospel  that  Paul  preached  in  Corinth, 
a  Gospel  elaborated  under  the  influence  of  the  peculiar  con- 
ditions that  existed  there,  and  preached  by  him  nowhere 
else.  On  the  contrary,  it  was  the  Gospel  which  he  had  held 
from  the  very  beginning  of  his  Christian  life  and  which  he 
had  without  doubt  proclaimed  in  many  another  city,  but 
probably  nowhere  else  had  the  immediate  need  of  just  such 
radical  doctrine  been  more  apparent  than  in  Corinth,  and 
nowhere  else,  unless  in  Galatia  after  the  intrusion  of  the 
Judaizers,  did  it  receive  more  exclusive  emphasis.  It  is 
interesting  to  notice  how  the  same  fundamental  conception 
is  turned  at  one  time  against  legalists  and  at  another  time 
against  antinomians ;  at  one  time  against  those  who  would 

1 1  Thess.  i.  9,  10. 

2  1  Cor.  i.  9,  30,  ii.  12  sq.,  iii.  16  sq.,  vi.  11,  14  sq.,  x.  16  sq.,  xii.  3  sq.,  xv. 
1  sq.,  20  sq. 


266  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

make  law  everything,  and  at  another  time  against  those 
who  would  repudiate  all  law.  That  under  such  different 
circumstances,  and  in  the  face  of  such  opposite  tendencies, 
Paul  reached  the  same  Gospel  is  an  evidence  of  the  degree 
to  which  it  had  taken  possession  of  him,  and  become  the 
controlling  principle  in  his  thinking  and  his  living. 

The  accuracy  of  Paul's  declaration  that  he  had  deter- 
mined not  to  know  anything  among  the  Corinthians  save 
Jesus  Christ  and  him  crucified,  is  confirmed  by  both  of  his 
epistles  to  them.  All  that  he  has  to  say  in  those  epistles 
about  the  duties  of  the  Christian  life  is  brought  into  rela- 
tion with  that  fundamental  truth.  When  he  warns  them 
against  licentiousness  and  intemperance,  he  reminds  them 
that  they  have  been  joined  unto  the  Lord,  and  that  their 
bodies  are  members  of  Christ  and  temples  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.1  When  he  discusses  the  subjects  of  marriage,  of 
meats  offered  to  idols,  of  the  Eucharist,  of  spiritual  gifts, 
and  of  the  resurrection,  he  makes  the  oneness  between  the 
believer  and  Christ  the  controlling  principle  in  every  case.2 
When  he  condemns  idolatry,  he  does  it  not  on  the  ground 
that  it  detracts  from  the  glory  of  the  one  supreme  God, 
but  that  it  makes  union  with  Christ  impossible.3  The 
Gospel  which  he  preached  was  thus  applied  by  him  to  all 
the  circumstances  and  relations  of  life,  and  its  practical 
power  was  abundantly  demonstrated.  At  the  beginning 
of  his  first  epistle  he  thanked  God  for  the  grace  that  was 
given  unto  the  Corinthians  in  Christ  Jesus,  that  "  in  every- 
thing they  were  enriched  in  him  in  all  utterance  and  all 
knowledge,"  so  that  they  "came  behind  in  no  gift."  And 
though  there  was  much  in  the  lives  of  those  to  whom  he 
wrote  that  he  had  to  complain  of,  he  could  yet  call  them 
to  witness  that  Christ  had  been  proved  in  their  own  ex- 
perience the  power  of  God,  and  that  he  had  been  made 
unto  them  "  wisdom  and  righteousness  and  sanctification 
and  redemption."  4 

Paul's  labors  in  Corinth  were  very  successful.     He  won 

1 1  Cor.  vi.  15  sq. 

2  1  Cor.  vii.,  viii.,  x.,  xi.,  xii.,  xv. ;  2  Cor.  i.  21,  iv.  11  sq.,  v.  17  sq. 

8  1  Cor.  x.  14  sq.  *  1  Cor.  i.  30. 


THE   WOKK   OF   PAUL  267 

a  great  many  disciples,  and  when  he  took  his  departure  he 
left  behind  him  a  strong  and  flourishing  church.  His  con- 
verts were  drawn  largely,  but  not  wholly,  from  the  lower 
classes  of  society.1  Not  many  wise,  not  many  mighty,  not 
many  noble,  were  among  them ;  but  his  words  imply  that 
there  were  at  least  some  such,  and  Crispus  and  Gaius  and 
Stephanas  and  Erastus  must  have  been  men  of  some  wealth 
and  social  position.2  Indeed,  *the  zeal  and  ability  displayed 
by  the  Corinthians  in  contributing  to  Paul's  fund  for  the 
poor  saints  of  Jerusalem3  shows  that  there  were  among 
them  many  who  were  blessed  with  a  sufficiency,  if  not  with 
an  abundance,  of  this  world's  goods.  It  is  not  at  all  im- 
probable that  while  his  converts  in  Corinth,  as  well  as 
in  other  parts  of  the  world,  came  in  general  from  the  lower 
or  lower-middle  stratum  of  society,  in  a  city  where  there 
was  so  much  wealth  the  church  itself  was  in  this  respect  at 
least  peculiarly  favored. 

Paul's  epistles  make  it  clear  that  his  work  in  Corinth 
was  largely  among  the  Gentiles,  and  that  there  were 
comparatively  few  Jewish  believers.4  Indeed,  the  great 
majority  of  his  Corinthian  converts  seem  to  have  come 
directly  from  heathendom  and  not,  as  was  so  commonly 
the  case,  from  the  ranks  of  the  proselytes  or  from  the 
number  of  those  that  had  already  felt  the  influence  of  the 
ethics  and  religion  of  the  Jews.5  This  perhaps  explains 
the  remarkable  fact  that  there  is  nowhere  in  either  of  his 
epistles  to  the  Corinthians  a  reference  to  the  connection 
between  Judaism  and  Christianity,  or  to  the  Christian's 
relation  to  the  Jewish  law,  of  which  he  makes  so  much  in 

1 1  Cor.  i.  26  sq. ;  cf .  vii.  21  sq. 

2  Cf .  Acts  xviii.  8 ;  1  Cor.  xvi.  15 ;  Rom.  xvi.  23. 

3  2  Cor.  viii.  and  ix. 

4  Cf.  1  Cor.  xii.  2.    That  there  were  some  Jewish  disciples  may  be  gathered 
from  such  passages  as  1  Cor.  i.  22  sq.  and  xii.  13,  and  from  the  nature  of  the 
Cephas  party,  to  which  Paul  refers  in  1  Cor.  i.  12  sq.    But  their  number  must 
have  been  very  small. 

5  The  ethical  questions  which  Paul  has  to  answer,  the  temptations  against 
which  he  is  obliged  to  warn  his  readers,  and  the  sins  which  he  is  compelled  to 
combat  are  a  clear  enough  evidence  of  this;  cf.  1  Cor.  v.  1,  vi.  9,  viii.  1  sq., 
x.  14  sq.    Such  instruction  and  such  exhortations  would  hardly  be  needed  by 
those  who  had  been  proselytes  or  "  God-fearing"  heathen  before  they  became 
Christians. 


268  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

his  epistles  to  the  Romans  and  Galatians.  He  makes  free 
use  of  the  Old  Testament,  as  he  does  in  those  epistles,  but 
he  employs  it  only  for  the  sake  of  illustrating  or  confirm- 
ing what  he  has  to  say,  and  not  as  an  authoritative  code 
or  a  final  court  of  appeal,  and  he  nowhere  makes  it  a  basis 
for  belief  in  the  truth  of  the  Gospel.1 

But  while  it  is  clear  that  Paul's  work  in  Corinth  was 
done  almost  wholly  among  the  Gentiles,  the  author  of  the 
Book  of  Acts  follows  his  usual  custom  in  recording  that  he 
began  his  labors  in  the  Jewish  synagogue,  and  turned  his 
attention  to  the  Gentiles  only  after  the  Jews  had  refused 
to  believe.2  He  represents  him,  moreover,  as  going  from 
the  synagogue  not  directly  to  the  heathen,  but  to  the 
house  of  a  certain  proselyte,  Titius  Justus,  which  was 
immediately  adjoining.  But  in  Paul's  own  epistles  there 
is  no  hint  of  any  such  procedure,  and  the  statement  that 
he  determined  not  to  know  anything  among  the  Corin- 
thians save  Jesus  Christ  and  him  crucified,  and  that  he 
was  with  them  "in  weakness  and  in  fear  and  in  much 
trembling,"  when  taken  in  connection  with  the  fact  just 
referred  to,  that  the  great  majority  of  his  converts  came 
apparently  directly  from  heathendom,  is  hardly  calculated 
to  confirm  Luke's  account  at  this  point.  It  is  possible,  of 
course,  that  Paul  sought  in  Corinth,  as  in  other  cities,  to 
gain  a  foothold  first  among  his  own  countrymen  and 
through  them  to  reach  the  most  accessible  of  the  Gentiles. 
It  was  certainly  a  natural  thing  to  do  there  as  well  as 
elsewhere.  But  if  he  did  so,  his  effort  was  so  abortive, 
and  his  work  among  the  Gentiles  was  so  independent  both 
in  its  inception  and  its  continuance,  that  he  could  speak 
at  a  later  date  as  if  he  had  had  nothing  whatever  to  do 
with  the  synagogue ;  as  if  he  had  made  his  appearance  in 
Corinth  not  as  a  preacher  of  the  Messiah,  but  as  the  herald 
of  a  new  life  in  the  Spirit  for  men  still  wedded  to  their 
fleshly  idols  and  their  fleshly  lusts.  Whatever  vantage 
ground  he  may  have  found  elsewhere  in  the  synagogue 
and  in  its  Gentile  adherents,  in  Corinth  he  found  little. 

1  Cf.,  e.g.,  I  Cor.  i.  19,  31,  iii.  20,  ix.  9,  x.  1-13 ;  2  Cor.  vi.  2,  ix.  7  sq. 

2  Acts  xviii.  4-6. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  269 

He  met  the  heathen  there  as  heathen,  and  brought  them 
a  Gospel  for  which  few  of  them  had  been  prepared  by 
their  contact  with  Judaism.  Even  though  Luke's  account 
of  what  occurred  may  be  substantially  accurate,  so  far  as  it 
goes,  he  has  evidently  recorded  again  that  which  was  least 
significant  and  important  in  Paul's  experience  and  activity. 

It  is  to  be  noticed  also  that  we  are  introduced  by  the 
Book  of  Acts  and  by  Paul's  epistles  to  two  different  circles 
of  disciples.  Luke  mentions  only  Jewish  disciples :  Crispus, 
the  ruler  of  the  synagogue,  Aquila  and  Priscilla,  Paul's 
hosts,  and  Titius  Justus,  a  proselyte;1  while  of  Stephanas, 
who  was  Paul's  first  convert  and,  as  it  would  seem,  the 
leading  man  in  the  Corinthian  church,2  he  says  nothing. 
The  names  of  other  apparently  Gentile  disciples,  Gaius, 
Fortunatus,  Achaicus,  and  Chloe,  all  of  whom  are  men- 
tioned in  Paul's  first  epistle,3  are  likewise  omitted  by  Luke. 
This  makes  it  still  more  evident  that  the  record  in  Acts 
was  not  based  upon  Paul's  own  account  of  his  stay  in 
Corinth. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  must  be  recognized  that  there 
are  some  striking  points  of  contact  between  the  Book 
of  Acts  and  the  epistles  to  the  Corinthians.  A  Crispus 
is  mentioned  by  Paul  as  one  of  the  few  converts  whom  he 
had  himself  baptized,  and  though  he  says  nothing  to  indicate 
that  he  had  been  a  ruler  of  the  synagogue,  or  even  a  Jew, 
there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  he  is  the  man  whose  con- 
version Luke  reports.4  Aquila  and  Priscilla  Paul  refers 
to  more  than  once  as  persons  of  influence  and  importance,5 
while  Acts  xviii.  19  and  1  Cor.  xvi.  19  agree  in  giving  them 
a  residence  at  a  later  time  in  Ephesus.  Silas  and  Timothy 
are  said  in  Acts  xviii.  5  to  have  been  with  Paul  in  Corinth, 
which  agrees  with  Paul's  own  statement  in  2  Cor.  i.  19 
and  with  the  fact  that  their  names  appear  in  the  salutations 
of  the  First  and  Second  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians,  both 
of  which  were  written  from  Corinth.  And  it  is  perhaps  not 
without  significance  that  in  the  salutation  of  the  First 

1  Titus  Justus  is  mentioned  in  none  of  Paul's  epistles. 

2  1  Cor.  i.  16,  xvi.  15,  16.         <  1  Cor.  i.  14 ;  Acts  xviii.  8. 

3  1  Cor.  i.  11,  14,  xvi.  17.         6  Rom.  xvi.  3,  1  Cor.  xvi.  19 ;  cf.  also  2  Tim.  iv.  19. 


270  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  occurs  the  name  Sosthenes, 
which  was  borne  by  the  ruler  of  the  synagogue  referred  to 
in  Acts  xviii.  17.  Luke,  to  be  sure,  says  nothing  of  his 
conversion  to  Christianity,  and  whether  the  two  are  identi- 
cal, we  do  not  know. 

Finally,  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  the  hostility  of  the  Jews 
upon  which  the  author  of  the  Acts  lays  such  stress 
in  his  account,  and  about  which  he  has  something  quite 
definite  to  report,1  is  apparently  confirmed  by  Paul's  First 
Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians,  in  which  he  speaks  as  if  he 
were  enduring  their  opposition  at  the  time  he  wrote.2  The 
account,  in  fact,  of  the  effort  of  the  Jews  to  excite  the 
enmity  of  the  Proconsul  Gallic  against  Paul,  and  to  secure 
his  condemnation  by  the  civil  authorities,  bears  every  mark 
of  truth.  Gallio  himself,  who  became  proconsul  of  Achaia 
toward  the  end  of  Claudius'  reign,  is  known  to  us  as  the 
brother  of  the  famous  Stoic  Seneca,  and  as  a  man  of  high 
character  and  philosophical  disposition.  That  he  should 
have  refused  to  entertain  such  a  complaint  as  the  Jews 
brought  against  Paul  was  but  natural.  The  Jews,  to  be 
sure,  accused  Paul  not  of  an  offence  against  their  own  law, 
but  of  persuading  men  to  worship  God  contrary  to  the  law 
of  the  empire ;  but  Gallio  was  acquainted  with  the  people 
with  whom  he  was  dealing,  and  knew  that  their  hostility  to 
Paul  was  due  solely  to  their  concern  for  their  own  religion 
and  not  for  the  religion  and  laws  of  Rome,  which  they 
cared  nothing  about.  He  therefore  summarily  dismissed 
the  complaint.  The  only  surprising  thing  about  the  mat- 
ter is  that  the  Jews  should  have  imagined  that  he  would 
do  anything  else.  Possibly  they  thought  as  he  was  new 
to  his  position  —  they  seem  to  have  made  their  complaint 
soon  after  his  accession  to  office  —  they  might  be  able  to 
influence  him  to  do  what,  under  ordinary  circumstances,  no 
just  and  capable  governor  would  think  of  doing.  This 
striking  narrative,  taken  in  connection  with  the  numerous 
agreements  pointed  out  just  above  between  the  Book  of 
Acts  and  Paul's  epistles,  makes  it  evident  that  Avliile 
Luke's  account  of  Paul's  first  visit  to  Corinth  was  not 

i  Acts  xviii.  12  sq.  2  1  Tliess.  ii.  15  sq. ;  cf.  also  iii.  7. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  271 

written  by  any  one  who  was  intimately  associated  with 
him,  it  was  yet  based  upon  an  older  source,  and  was  not 
the  product  of  the  writer's  imagination. 

It  is  clear  from  many  passages  in  Paul's  epistles  to  the 
Corinthians  that  they  owed  their  Christianity  to  him.  He 
did  not  enter  into  the  heritage  of  some  other  man's  labors.1 
On  the  contrary,  he  himself  laid  the  foundations ;  he  him- 
self first  planted  the  Gospel  seed  among  them.2  He  re- 
minds them  that  he  is  their  father;3  and  he  tells  them 
that  he  is  jealous  over  them,  for  it  was  he  that  had 
espoused  them  to  Christ.4  He  glories  in  them,  for  they 
are  his  own  work  in  the  Lord  and  the  seal  of  his  apostle- 
ship  ; 5  they  are  his  epistle,  known  and  read  of  all  men.6 
From  him  they  had  received  the  traditions  which  they 
were  still  holding  fast,  and  the  Gospel  in  which  they  were 
standing  and  by  which  they  were  saved.7 

But  though  Christianity  in  Corinth  was  due  in  the  first 
instance  to  Paul's  evangelistic  labors,  it  is  significant  that 
he  did  not  esteem  it  his  chief  work  to  organize  a  church 
and  to  gather  his  converts  into  it,  but  simply  to  preach 
the  Gospel.  Christ  sent  him  not  to  baptize,  but  to 
preach;8  and  the  baptism  of  those  who  believed  con- 
cerned him  so  little  that  he  left  it  almost  entirely  to 
others,  and  was  unable  even  to  remember  whether  he  had 
himself  baptized  any  one  except  Crispus  and  Gaius  and 
the  household  of  Stephanas.9  It  cannot  be  concluded 
from  this  that  his  Corinthian  converts  were  commonly 
left  unbaptized.  It  is  clear,  from  1  Cor.  i.  13  and  xii.  13, 
that  baptism  was  practised  in  Corinth  just  as  it  was  else- 
where, and  that  every  believer  was  expected  to  signify  his 
entrance  upon  the  Christian  life  by  receiving  the  rite. 
But  Paul's  indifference  respecting  the  matter  shows  that 
his  interest  while  he  was  in  Corinth  lay  rather  in  Chris- 
tianity than  in  the  church ;  rather  in  the  progress  of  the 
Gospel  than  in  the  establishment  of  an  institution.  And 

1  2  Cor.  x.  14.  6  2  Cor.  iii.  2. 

2  1  Cor.  iii.  6,  10 ;  cf.  also  iii.  1  and  ix.  11.  7  1  Cor.  xi.  2,  xv.  1  sq. 

3  1  €or.  iv.  14  sq. ;  2  Cor.  xii.  14.  8  i  Cor.  i.  17. 

4  2  Cor.  xi.  2.  »  1  Cor.  i.  14  sq. 

5  1  Cor.  ix.  2 ;  2  Cor.  i.  14. 


272 


THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 


what  was  true  of  him  in  Corinth  was  true  of  him  else- 
where  as  well.  He  was  a  preacher,  not  an  organizer ;  and 
it  was  apparently  his  general  custom  to  leave  to  his  con- 
verts the  adoption  of  such  methods  as  seemed  to  them 
necessary  for  the  conduct  of  the  affairs  of  the  church, 
He  thought  of  them  always  as  guided  and  controlled  in 
all  their  relations  with  one  another  by  the  Spirit  of  God, 
and  under  such  circumstances  organization,  rites  and  cere- 
monies, and  regulations  for  the  conduct  of  worship  and 
discipline,  seemed  matters  of  small  moment  to  him.  The 
peculiar  practice  of  baptizing  the  living  for  the  dead,  to 
which  he  refers  in  1  Cor.  xv.  29,  would  seem  to  imply 
that  already,  before  that  epistle  was  written,  the  custom 
had  grown  up  in  Corinth  of  postponing  baptism  until  the 
convert  had  received  a  certain  amount  of  Christian  in- 
struction and  the  sincerity  of  his  conversion  had  been 
tested ;  so  that  entrance  upon  the  Christian  life  and  bap- 
tism did  not  necessarily  coincide.  This  was  the  almost 
universal  custom  in  the  second  century,  and  it  was  not 
unnatural  that  where  the  Pauline  idea  of  baptism  as  a 
symbol  of  burial  and  resurrection  with  Christ  prevailed, 
the  desire  should  arise,  when  a  believer  happened  to  die 
without  baptism,  to  testify  that  he  had  died  with  Christ, 
and  would  therefore  rise  again  with  him,  by  having  an- 
other baptized  as  his  representative.  Paul  can  hardly 
have  understood  the  practice  to  mean  more  than  a  mere 
testimony  of  the  believer's  real  oneness  with  Christ;  for 
if  it  was  based  upon  a  superstitious  idea  that  the  rite 
possessed  a  magical  efficacy  in  and  of  itself,  we  may  be 
sure  that  he  would  have  condemned  it,  or  that  he  would 
at  any  rate  have  refrained  from  giving  it  such  tacit  sanc- 
tion as  is  implied  in  his  employment  of  it  as  an  argument 
for  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  Possibly  the  practice 
actually  did  foster  such  an  exaggerated  and  unhealthful 
estimate  of  the  rite,  and  was  in  consequence  finally  opposed 
by  Paul,  and  given  up  by  his  converts.  At  any  rate,  it 
never  became  common  in  the  Christian  church.1 

1  The  practice  is  reported  to  have  existed  in  the  Marcionitic  and  Cerinthian 
sects  (see  Tertullian :  De  res.  carnis,  48,  and  Adv.  Marc.  V.  10,  for  the  Marciou- 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  273 

According  to  the  Book  of  Acts,  Paul  spent  something 
more  than  a  year  and  a  half  in  Corinth,  and  the  work  that 
he  accomplished  there  makes  it  evident  that  the  length  of 
his  stay  is  not  exaggerated.  Whether  he  remained  in  the 
city  itself  during  all  that  'time,  or  preached  the  Gospel  in 
other  parts  of  the  province  as  well,  we  do  not  know. 
There  were,  at  any  rate,  Christian  disciples  in  Achaia, 
outside  of  Corinth,  when  he  wrote  his  last  epistle,  for  he 
addressed  it  not  simply  to  the  church  in  Corinth,-  but  also 
to  "  all  the  saints  in  the  whole  of  Achaia " ; l  and  the 
household  of  Stephanas  he  calls  the  firstfruits  not  of  the 
city  simply,  but  of  the  province.2 

8.  THE  EVANGELIZATION  OF  ASIA 

Leaving  Corinth  probably  in  the  spring  or  summer  of 
49,  in  company  with  his  friends  and  fellow-workers,  Aquila 
and  Priscilla,3  Paul  made  his  way  to  the  seaport  Cenchrese 
and  thence  took  ship  for  Syria  by  way  of  Ephesus.  There 
is  no  sign  that  he  left  under  the  pressure  of  persecution. 
He  seems  to  have  felt  that  he  had  succeeded  in  establish- 
ing Christianity  upon  a  firm  foundation  in  Achaia  and 
that  it  was  time  for  him  to  seek  a  new  field.  It  is  signifi- 
cant that  he  did  not  go  on  westward  toward  Rome,  but 
that  he  turned  back  again  toward  the  East.  He  doubtless 
had  the  still  unevangelized  province  of  Asia  in  mind,  and 
though  he  probably  did  not  give  up  his  design  of  proclaim- 
ing the  Gospel  ultimately  in  Rome  itself,  he  was  apparently 
anxious  first  to  accomplish  the  work  which  he  had  been  pre- 
vented from  doing  before  he  visited  Macedonia  and  Achaia. 
Whatever  it  was  that  had  hindered  him  from  preaching  in 
Asia  two  years  or  more  earlier,4  the  situation  had  evidently 
changed  in  the  meantime,  so  that  he  could  now  attempt 
what  he  had  then  been  obliged  to  postpone.  Ephesus  was 
one  of  the  most  important  and  influential  cities  of  the  East, 
and  if  once  established  there,  Christianity  might  well  hope 

ites  ;  and  Epiphanius :  Haer.  XXVIII.  7,  for  the  Cerinthians),  but  we  hear  of  it 
nowhere  else.    Cf.  Heinrici's  Commentary  on  First  Corinthians,  in  loc. 

1  Cf.  also  1  Cor.  i.  i  ;  2  Cor.  xi.  10;  Rom.  xvi.  1. 

2  1  Cor.  xvi.  15.  3  Acts  xviii.  18.  4  Acts  xvi.  6. 


274  THE   APOSTOLIC    AGE 

to  penetrate  speedily  into  all  parts  of  Asia  Minor.  It 
is  not  to  be  wondered  at,  therefore,  that  Paul  should 
wish  to  preach  the  Gospel  there  before  going  further 
westward. 

Before  entering  upon  a  new  campaign,  he  desired  to 
visit  the  scene  of  his  earlier  labors,  and  he  consequently 
tarried  only  a  short  time  in  Ephesus  and  then  hastened  on 
to  Antioch,  promising  to  return  in  the  near  future.1  The 
author  of  the  Acts  reports  that  he  set  sail  from  Ephesus 
for  Csesarea,  and  that  when  he  had  landed  there  he  "  went 
up  and  saluted  the  church,"  meaning  apparently  the  church 
of  Jerusalem.2  But  there  are  difficulties  in  the  way  of 
supposing  that  Paul  visited  Jerusalem  at  this  time.  After 
the  agreement  made  with  James  and  Peter  and  John,  he 
would  certainly  not  wish  to  go  thither  empty-handed,  but 
would  prefer  to  wait  until  he  had  gathered  the  collection 
for  the  poor  saints  of  the  Mother  Church  upon  which  he 
lays  such  stress  in  his  epistles  to  the  Corinthians  and 
Romans.  Moreover,  the  account  of  his  later  visit  to  Jeru- 
salem, in  Acts  xxi.,  is  such  as  to  imply  that  he  had  not  been 
in  the  city  since  the  time  of  the  conference  concerning 
Gentile  Christianity.3  It  looks  as  if  the  statement  that 
he  "  went  up  and  saluted  the  church "  were  due  to  the 
author's  assumption  that  Paul  could  not  have  gone  back 
to  Syria  without  paying  his  respects  to  the  older  apostles ; 
an  assumption  which  was  entirely  natural  in  one  who  held 
the  general  view  that  he  did  touching  the  relation  between 
Paul  and  them.  Our  conclusion  in  this  matter  is  confirmed 
by  Luke's  apparent  lack  of  knowledge  touching  the  par- 
ticulars of  the  visit  to  which  he  refers  in  such  general  and 
even  ambiguous  terms.4 

1  Acts  xviii.  21.  2  Acts  xviii.  22.  3  Cf.  especially  Acts  xxi.  25. 

4  The  vow  which  is  spoken  of  in  Acts  xviii.  18  had  no  connection,  as  is 
sometimes  supposed,  with  Paul's  alleged  visit  to  Jerusalem.  Even  if  it  was 
Paul  himself  and  not  Aquila  who  took  the  vow,  which  is  by  no  means  certain, 
there  is  not  the  slightest  reason  to  suppose  that  it  involved  a  journey  to  Jeru- 
salem. A  vow  seems  to  have  been  made  by  either  Paul  or  Aquila  that  some 
particular  thing  should  be  done,  and  as  a  sign  his  hair  was  to  be  allowed  to 
grow  until  it  was  accomplished.  To  what  the  vow  had  reference  and  when  it 
was  fulfilled  we  have  no  means  of  knowing ;  but  such  vows  were  very  common 
in  those  days  and  there  is  nothing  out  of  the  ordinary  in  the  one  recorded  by 
Luke. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  275 

After  a  stay  of  some  time  at  Antioch,  Paul  visited  again 
his  churches  in  Galatia,1  and  from  thence  made  his  way 
back  to  Ephesus,  where  he  had  left  Aquila  and  Priscilla 
a  few  weeks  or  months  before.2  Here  he  took  up  his 
residence  and  carried  on  an  active  evangelistic  campaign 
for  some  three  or  more  years.3  It  is  to  be  regretted  that 
we  possess  no  such  elaborate  epistle  as  those  to  the  Gala- 
tians,  Thessalonians,  and  Corinthians,  from  which  we  may 
learn  of  the  origin  of  the  church  of  Ephesus  and  of  Paul's 
long  and  important  work  there.  The  so-called  Epistle  to 
the  Ephesians  was  not  addressed  to  that  church,4  and  it 
throws  very  little  light  upon  the  condition  of  things  even 
in  the  other  churches  of  the  province  to  which  it  seems 
actually  to  have  been  sent.  And  yet  we  are  not  without 
sources.  We  have  a  brief  note  intended  to  introduce  and 
commend  Phoebe  to  the  Ephesian  Christians ;  and  two 
short  letters  or  fragments  of  letters  incorporated  in 
2  Timothy.5  We  have  also  scattered  notices  in  Paul's  two 
epistles  to  the  Corinthians,  one  of  which  was  written  in 
Ephesus  and  the  other  soon  after  he  left  there  ;  an  address 
to  the  Ephesian  elders  recorded  in  Acts  xx.  18  sq. ;  and 
finally  the  somewhat  extended  but  not  altogether  satisfac- 
tory account  in  the  Book  of  Acts.6 

The  brief  note  of  introduction  referred  to  throws  more 
light  than  any  of  the  other  sources  upon  the  life  of  the 
Ephesian  church.  It  is  found  in  Rom.  xvi.  1-23.  That 
that  passage  did  not  constitute  originally  a  part  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans  seems  plain  enough.  It  is  incon- 
ceivable that  Paul,  who  had  never  been  in  Rome  when 

1  Acts  xviii.  23. 

2  Paul  apparently  did  not  take  the  main  road  to  Ephesus,  which  passed 
through  Colossae  and  Laodicea,  for  Col.  ii.  1  seems  to  indicate  that  he  had 
visited  neither  of  those  cities.     He  must  have  taken  the  less  frequented 
but  somewhat  more  direct  route  running  through  the  Cayster  valley,  a  little 
to  the  north  of  the  main  road.     (See  Ramsay :  Church  in  the  Roman  Empire, 
p.  93  sq.)     He  probably  made  his  way  directly  to  Ephesus  without  stopping 
to  do  evangelistic  work  in  other  parts  of  the  province.     It  was  always  his  cus- 
tom to  seek  the  great  centres,  and  we  have  a  possible  confirmation  for  the 
assumption  that  he  followed  his  usual  plan  in  this  case  in  Rom.  xvi.  5,  where 
Epaenetus,  apparently  a  resident  of  Ephesus  (see  just  below),  is  called  the 
"  firstfruits  of  Asia." 

3  Acts  xx.  31 ;  cf .  xix.  8,  10,  22.  «  See  below,  p.  407. 

4  See  below,  p.  379.  '  «  Acts  xix. 


276  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

he  wrote  his  epistle,  should  not  only  know  personally  so 
many  members  of  the  Roman  church,  but  should  also  be 
intimately  acquainted  with  their  situation  and  surround- 
ings.1 There  is  far  less  of  the  personal  element  in  the 
remainder  of  the  epistle  than  in  most  of  Paul's  letters, 
and  yet  in  this  single  sixteenth  chapter  more  persons  are 
greeted  by  name  than  in  all  his  other  epistles  combined, 
and  the  way  in  which  he  refers  to  them  shows  a  remark- 
able familiarity  with  local  conditions  in  the  church  to  which 
he  is  writing.  The  Epistle  to  the  Romans  comes  to  a  fitting 
close  at  the  end  of  chapter  fifteen,  and  the  disordered  state 
of  the  text  in  the  latter  part  of  the  epistle,  and  the  repeti- 
tions and  displacements  of  the  doxologies  in  some  of  the 
most  ancient  manuscripts,  suggest  that  one  or  more  addi- 
tions have  been  made  to  the  original  letter.  On  the  other 
hand,  while  the  chapter  in  question  seems  entirely  out  of 
place  in  a  letter  addressed  to  the  church  of  Rome,  it  con- 
tains just  such  greetings,  and  just  such  a  wealth  of  personal 
allusions  as  might  be  expected  in  an  epistle  sent  to  Ephe- 
sus,  where  Paul  labored  so  long  and  zealously.  There  are 
to  be  found  in  it,  moreover,  certain  specific  references  that 
point  to  Ephesus  as  the  place  of  its  destination.  Among 
those  to  whom  Paul  sends  salutations  are  Epsenetus,  the 
"  firstfruits  of  Asia,"  2  and  Aquila  and  Priscilla,  whom  he 
calls  his  fellow-workers,  and  who,  as  we  know,  labored  with 
him  in  Ephesus  during  at  least  the  greater  part  of  his  stay 
in  the  city.  He  refers  to  the  church  in  their  house  both 
in  this  chapter  and  in  his  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,3 
which  was  written  at  Ephesus.  Among  those  who  join 
Paul  in  sending  greetings  are  Timothy  and  Erastus,  both 
of  whom  were  with  him  in  Ephesus.4  It  is  clear  also,  from 
1  Cor.  i.  11  and  xvi.  15  sq.,  that  the  intercourse  between  the 
Christians  of  Ephesus  and  of  Corinth  was  close  and  con- 
stant, and  it  is  therefore  not  surprising  that  there  should  be 
others  in  the  latter  city  at  the  time  Paul  wrote,  who  were 
personally  known  to  the  Ephesian  disciples.5  Finally,  it 

1  As  Jiilicher  (Einleitung,  S.  73)  remarks,  a  regular  migration  of  Paul's 
converts  to  Rome  must  have  taken  place,  including  whole  families. 

2  Rom.  xvi.  5.  .  *  Acts  xix.  22 ;  cf .  1  Cor.  iv.  17. 
8  1  Cor.  xvi.  19.                                     6  Rom.  xvi.  21  sq. 


THE  WORK  OF   PAUL  277 

should  be  observed  that  Paul's  references  to  the  fact  that 
Aquila  and  Priscilla  had  laid  down  their  necks  in  his  be- 
half, and  that  Andronicus  and  Junias  had  been  his  fellow- 
prisoners, —  references  which  seem  to  recall  events  well 
known  to  the  Christians  to  whom  he  was  writing,  —  point 
to  dangers  and  sufferings  similar  to  those  which  we  know 
he  was  called  upon  to  face  in  Ephesus.  In  the  light  of 
such  facts  as  these,  it  is  altogether  probable  that  we  have 
in  the  sixteenth  chapter  of  Romans,  a  letter  addressed  to 
the  Ephesian  church.1  It  is  possible  that  it  is  only  part 
of  a  larger  epistle  now  lost,  but  it  is  more  likely  that  we 
have  it  practically  complete  and  in  its  original  form.  Just 
as  it  stands,  it  constitutes  an  appropriate  note  of  intro- 
duction and  commendation,  and  there  is  no  sign  that  it  is 
merely  a  fragment.  That  it  should  have  been  attached  to 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  is  not  particularly  surprising. 
It  was  evidently  written  from  Corinth,  as  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans  was,  and  at  about  the  same  time  with  that 
epistle.  It  may  have  been  transcribed  also  by  the  same 
hand,  and  in  that  case  nothing  would  be  more  natural  than 
that  the  smaller  should  become  attached  to  the  larger  in 
copies  of  the  two  taken  in  Corinth  at  the  time  they  were 
written. 

The  amount  of  information  contained  in  this  brief  note 
touching  the  work  of  Paul  in  Ephesus,  and  the  conditions 
existing  there  at  the  time  it  was  written,  is  not  great,  but 
there  are  a  few  welcome  hints  which  we  shall  do  well  to 
observe.2  It  is  clear  that  there  were  Jewish  as  well  as 
Gentile  Christians  in  the  church  and  among  Paul's  fellow- 
workers.  He  calls  Andronicus,  Junias,  and  Herodion  his 
kinsmen ;  and  Aquila  and  Priscilla  were  also  Jews,  as  we 
learn  from  Acts  xviii.  2.  To  these  is  to  be  added,  if  we 
may  judge  from  her  name,  the  Mary  mentioned  iri  vs.  6, 
making  altogether  at  least  six  of  Jewish  birth,  or  nearly 

1  The  theory  that  Rom.  xvi.  was  addressed  to  Ephesus  instead  of  Rome 
was  first  broached  by  Schultz  in  1829,  and  has  been  accepted  by  Renan,  Weiss, 
Weizsacker,  Julicher,  and  many  others.  The  arguments  against  the  theory 
are  given  with  the  greatest  possible  fulness  in  Sanday's  recent  Commentary 
oil  Romans,  pp.  xciii  sq.  and  418  sq. 

?  Cf.  especially  Weizsacker  I.e.  S.  331  sq.  (Eng.  Trans.,  Vol.  I.  p.  392  sq.). 


278  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

one-fourth  of  the  list.  Aquila  and  Priscilla  were  probably 
converted  under  Paul's  influence  in  Corinth,  and  learned 
the  Gospel  first  from  his  own  lips,  but  Andronicus  and 
Junias  were  Christians  before  him.  That  he  speaks  of 
them  as  his  fellow-prisoners  and  as  men  of  note  among 
the  apostles  simply  shows  that  it  was  not  an  uncommon 
thing  for  other  Jewish  Christians,  besides  those  converted 
by  Paul  himself,  to  be  in  hearty  sympathy  with  his  work, 
and  to  labor  side  by  side  with  him  for  the  advancement  of 
the  Gospel.  We  are  doubtless  too  prone  to  regard  the 
cases  of  Barnabas  and  Silas  as  exceptional  in  this  respect. 
It  is  altogether  likely  that  Andronicus  and  Junias  were  but 
two  among  many  of  their  class  whom  Paul  could  count  as 
his  supporters  and  fellow-apostles. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  also  that  there  were  at  least 
three  congregations  or  local  bodies  of  Christians  in  Ephe- 
sus  at  the  time  Paul  wrote.  He  speaks  in  vs.  5  of  the 
church  in  the  house  of  Aquila  and  Priscilla,1  and  the 
two  groups  of  disciples  to  which  he  refers  in  vss.  14  and 
15  evidently  constituted  similar  churches  or  companies 
of  disciples.  And  yet  they  were  all  a  part  of  the  church 
of  Ephesus  and  there  was  no  schism  among  them.  Paul 
introduces  Phoebe  to  the  church  as  a  whole  and  addresses 
them  all  as  members  of  one  body.  We  have  in  these  local 
or  house  churches  an  example  of  what  must  have  been 
very  commori  from  the  beginning  in  all  the  larger  cities.2 
The  Christians  of  a  particular  neighborhood  or  those  who 
were  bound  together  by  any  special  ties,  whether  domestic, 
social,  or  industrial,  would  naturally  constitute  a  special 
church  of  their  own,  would  meet  by  themselves  for  wor- 
ship, would  partake  together  of  the  common  meal  or  Lord's 
Supper,  and  would  perhaps  even  receive  and  dispense  their 
own  alms  and  administer  their  own  discipline,  at  least  to 
a  certain  extent,  while  all  the  time  regarding  themselves 
as  fellow-disciples  with  other  Christians  in  all  parts  of  the 
city  and  as  members  of  one  common  church.  It  may  be 
that  the  servants  and  slaves  belonging  to  the  households 
of  Aristobulus  and  Narcissus,  to  whom  Paul  refers  in  vss. 

1  Cf.  also  1  Cor.  xvi.  19.  2  Cf.  Col.  iv.  15,  and  Philemon  2. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  279 

10  and  11,  likewise  constituted  family  churches  of  their 
own.  It  is  at  any  rate  significant  that  Paul  speaks  of 
them  in  a  body  without  mentioning  any  of  their  names, 
as  if  they  formed  a  community  by  themselves  and  had 
their  significance  rather  as  members  of  it  than  as  individ- 
uals. It  was  doubtless,  indeed,  in  the  families  of  wealthy 
householders,  who  had  large  numbers  of  slaves,  that  the 
local  or  house  churches  were  most  common.1 

Paul  speaks  with  peculiar  tenderness  in  vs.  13  of  a 
woman  whose  name  he  does  not  give :  "  Salute  Rufus  the 
chosen  in  the  Lord  and  his  mother  and  mine."  Such 
words  mean  much  from  a  man  of  Paul's  temperament.  It 
must  be  that  she  had  had  peculiar  opportunities  of  render- 
ing him  such  services  as  only  a  woman  can.  It  is  possible, 
as  Weizsacker  suggests,  that  Paul  had  made  his  home 
with  her  and  her  son,  and  if  that  were  so,  he  may  have 
had  good  cause  to  remember  with  gratitude  many  occa- 
sions during  his  troublous  stay  in  Ephesus  when  her  moth- 
erly care  had  blessed  both  his  body  and  his  mind.  From 
vss.  17-20  we  learn  that  the  church  of  Ephesus  was  not 
wholly  free  from  internal  difficulties.  Certain  disciples 
of  antinomian  tendencies  were  creating  divisions  and  lead- 
ing the  hearts  of  the  innocent  astray ;  but  they  seem  not 
to  have  been  causing  any  very  serious  trouble,  for  Paul 
was  convinced  that  their  efforts  would  soon  be  defeated, 
and  he  could  rejoice  over  the  Ephesian  Christians  in  gen- 
eral because  their  obedience  was  known  of  all  men.  Thus, 
though  the  note  is  a  brief  one,  and  though  it  was  written 
only  for  the  purpose  of  commending  Phoebe  to  the  disciples 
of  Ephesus,  we  can  gather  from  it  some  interesting  and  in- 
structive hints  touching  the  life  of  the  Ephesian  church 
and  the  personality  of  its  membership. 

From  the  two  letters  to  Timothy,  incorporated  in  Second 
Timothy,  we  learn  one  or  two  additional  facts.  An  Onesi- 
phorus  is  mentioned  in  2  Tim.  i.  16  sq.  and  iv.  19,  whose 
home  was  in  Ephesus  and  who  ministered  to  Paul  in  many 
ways  both  there  and  in  Rome.  He  was  apparently  dead 
at  the  time  Paul  wrote  his  final  letter  to  Timothy,  for 

1  Cf.  also  1  Cor.  i.  11,  where  "  those  of  Chloe's  household  "  are  spokeij  of. 


280  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

greetings  are  sent  only  to  his  family ;  but  the  apostle  had 
very  tender  memories  of  him  and  commends  both  his  cour- 
age and  his  love.  A  certain  coppersmith  named  Alexan- 
der is  also  mentioned  in  the  earlier  of  the  two  notes  1  and 
Timothy  is  warned  to  beware  of  him,  because  he  had  done 
Paul  much  evil  and  had  opposed  his  preaching  bitterly. 
The  later  of  the  two  notes  refers  also  to  two  Ephesian 
Christians,  Phygelus  and  Herrnogenes,  who  with  many 
others  had  turned  away  from  the  apostle,  not,  however, 
until  long  after  his  departure  from  the  city.2 

For  an  insight  into  Paul's  own  life  during  his  residence 
in  the  capital  city  of  the  province  of  Asia,  we  find  his  two 
epistles  to  the  Corinthians  most  helpful.  That  he  was 
subjected  to  the  severest  trials,  and  that  he  had  many 
hardships  and  much  suffering  to  endure,  is  clear  enough 
from  such  passages  as  1  Cor.  iv.  10  sq.,  xv.  30,  31,  and 
from  many  utterances  in  his  second  epistle  which  were 
without  doubt  due  in  part  at  least  to  experiences  he  had 
passed  through  but  a  short  time  before  in  Ephesus.3 

One  incident  to  which  he  refers  in  1  Cor.  xv.  32  is  of 
especial  significance.  "If  after  the  manner  of  men  I 
fought  with  beasts 4  at  Ephesus,"  he  cries,  "  what  doth  it 
profit  me?"  These  words  are  commonly  interpreted  as 
referring  to  his  conflict  with  his  human  adversaries,5  but 
why  he  should  appeal  in  such  a  striking  way  and  at  the 
very  climax  of  his  argument  to  that  which  was  so  com- 
mon an  experience  with  him  in  other  cities,  as  well  as  in 
Ephesus,  it  is  difficult  to  understand.  His  words  seem  to 
imply  that  he  had  in  mind  a  certain  definite  and  unique 
event ;  that  he  was,  in  fact,  actually  condemned  while  in 
Ephesus  to  a  combat  with  wild  beasts  in  the  arena.6  It  is 

1  2  Tim.  iv.  14  sq. 

2  2  Tim.  i.  15.    Whether  Hymenaeus  and  Philetus,  mentioned  in  2  Tim.  ii. 
17,  belonged  to  Ephesus,  we  do  not  know.    The  passage  in  which  their  names 
occur  is  probably  from  another  hand  than  Paul's.    The  same  may  be  said  of 
the  Hymenaeus  (very  likely  the  same  one  just  referred  to),  and  of  the  Alex- 
ander (not  to  be  identified  with  the  coppersmith  of  2  Tim.  iv.  14),  mentioned 
in  1  Tim.  i.  20. 

8  Cf.,  e.g.,  2  Cor.  i.  4  sq.,  vii.  5,  xi.  23  sq. ;  cf.  also  his  address  to  the  elders 
of  Ephesus  in  which  his  trials  and  his  tears  are  emphasized  (Acts  xx.  19,  31). 
4  49T7/>to/xdx*7<ra.  6  Cf.,  e.g.,  Heinrici,  in  loc. 

c  So  also  Weizsiicker,  I.e.  S.  325  (Eng.  Trans.,  Vol.  I.  p.  385). 


THE   WORK  OF  PAUL  281 

surprising,  to  be  sure,  that  he  escaped  with  his  life,  but  we 
know  that  such  a  thing  sometimes  occurred.  It  is  sur- 
prising, too,  that  he  does  not  mention  so  remarkable  an 
experience  in  2  Cor.  xi.  23  sq.,  where  he  recounts  many 
of  his  trials  and  adventures.  But  the  two  epistles  were 
written  to  the  same  church,  and  as  he  had  mentioned  it  in 
the  first,  it  may  have  seemed  unnecessary  to  do  so  in  the 
second.  The  incident  was  well  known  to  his  readers,  and 
would  of  course  at  once  occur  to  them  as  one  of  the  many 
occasions  on  which  he  had  been  brought  face  to  face  with 
death.1  But  if  Paul  was  compelled  to  face  the  wild  beasts 
in  the  arena,  he  must  have  been  regularly  condemned  by 
the  civil  authorities.  Probably  his  preaching,  which  was 
done  largely  in  public,2  finally  aroused  such  widespread 
hostility  against  him,  that  an  uproar  resulted,  and  he 
was  arrested  and  condemned  to  death  as  the  cause  of  it. 
In  the  exercise  of  his  extraordinary  police  jurisdiction, 
the"  provincial  governor  might  pass  sentence  upon  Paul, 
if  he  believed  that  the  public  peace  was  endangered  by 
him,  even  though  he  had  committed  no  actual  crime.3 
And  it  was  within  his  province,  when  the  contest  in 
the  arena  did  not  result  fatally,  to  set  him  free,  if  he 
chose,  instead  of  sending  him  to  the  executioner  as  was 
commonly  done.  ,  Doubtless  he  was  convinced  that  Paul 
would  avoid  creating  any  more  disturbances.  It  may 
have  been  in  connection  with  the  same  event  that  Paul 
underwent  the  imprisonment  which  is  implied  in  his  refer- 
ence to  his  fellow-prisoners  Andronicus  and  Junias.4  They 
were  perhaps  arrested  as  his  accomplices  and  thrown  into 
prison  with  him,  but  escaped  the  condemnation  which  fell 
upon  him  as  the  ringleader. 

That  the  disturbance  which  led  to  this  almost  fatal 
result  is  the  same  as  the  one  described  in  Acts  xix.  23  sq., 
as  due  to  the  hostility  of  Demetrius,  the  silversmith, 
is  possible,  but  by  no  means  certain.  It  is  significant 
that  the  town  clerk  suggests  that  if  Demetrius  and  his 

1  2  Cor.  xi.  23,  26.  2  Acts  xix.  9,  xx.  20. 

8  See  Mommsen :  Dar  Reliyiomfrevel  nach  romischem  Recht  (Historische 
Zeitschrift,  Bd.  64,  1890,  S.  385)  sq.). 
4  Rom.  xvi.  7 ;  cf .  2  Cor.  xi.  23. 


282  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

companions  have  a  grievance  against  any  one,  they  are 
at  liberty  to  bring  the  matter  before  the  proconsul ;  and  it 
may  be  that  this  was  exactly  the  course  followed.  But  we 
learn  from  2  Cor.  i.  8  sq.,  that  before  leaving  Ephesus 
Paul  was  again  brought  face  to  face  with  death,  and  barely 
escaped  with  his  life.  The  reference  in  this  case  must  be 
to  a  new  danger  and  a  new  escape  ;  for  he  speaks  of  it  as 
a  recent  experience  of  which  the  Corinthians  have  not  yet 
heard,  while  of  his  earlier  trial  he  told  them  in  his  first 
epistle  written  more  than  a  year  before.  Possibly  the 
trouble  with  Demetrius  is  identical  with  the  later  rather 
than  with  the  earlier  experience.  If  Paul  had  already 
been  condemned  some  time  before  as  a  disturber  of  the 
peace,  and  if  he  had  taken  up  his  evangelistic  work  again 
after  his  release,  such  an  uproar  as  that  started  by  Deme- 
trius would  of  course  be  exceedingly  dangerous,  and  would 
make  it  necessary  for  him  to  flee  for  his  life  ;  and  he  might 
easily  speak  of  it  a  few  weeks  later  in  the  strong  terms 'of 
2  Cor.  i.  8  sq.,  even  though,  because  he  was  fortunate 
enough  to  get  away,  it  actually  resulted  in  no  serious  con- 
sequences. In  favor  of  the  supposition  that  it  is  to  this 
affair  that  Paul  refers  in  2  Cor.  i.  9  sq.,  might  be  urged 
the  fact  that  it  is  put  by  the  author  of  the  Acts  at  the  very 
end  of  Paul's  stay  in  Ephesus,  and  that  his  departure  from 
the  city  is  closely  connected  with  it.  But  in  a  fragmentary 
account  such  as  we  have  in  the  nineteenth  chapter,  little 
stress  can  be  laid  upon  the  order  in  which  the  events  are 
narrated.  At  any  rate,  whether  the  incident  is  to  be  con- 
nected with  either  of  the  experiences  to  which  Paul  refers 
in  his  Corinthian  epistles,  the  general  trustworthiness  of 
Luke's  account  cannot  be  questioned.  The  occurrence  is 
too  true  to  life  and  is  related  in  too  vivid  a  way  to  permit 
a  doubt  as  to  its  historic  reality.1  The  only  point  in  it  that 
is  not  quite  clear  is  the  part  played  by  the  Jew  Alexander.2 

1  Upon  Demetrius,  the  silversmith,  and  the  riot  incited  by  him  see  especially 
Ramsay :  Church  in  the  Roman  Empire,  p.  112  sq.,  with  the  literature  referred 
to  by  him ;  and  compare  also  his  St.  Paul,  the  Traveller  and  Roman  Citizen, 
p.  277  sq. 

2  It  is  of  course  natural  to  identify  the  Jew  Alexander,  of  Acts  xix.  33,  with 
Alexander,  the  coppersmith,  mentioned  in  2  Tim.  iv.  14.    But  the  identification 


THE  WORK   OF   PAUL  283 

Possibly  the  Jews  of  the  city  feared  that  the  disturb- 
ance might  result,  as  such  disturbances  were  very  apt 
to  do,  in  an  attack  upon  them  because  of  their  known  hos- 
tility to  idolatry ;  and  they  may  have  endeavored  to  pre- 
vent such  an  attack  by  drawing  the  attention  of  the  crowd 
back  to  Paul,  who  was  the  original  cause  of  the  uproar,  and 
by  disclaiming  all  connection  with  him  and  his  followers. 

But  though  Luke  thus  records  an  incident  that  bears  all 
the  marks  of  truth,  it  is  noticeable  that  he  says  nothing 
about  the  dangers  and  trials  of  which  Paul  himself  speaks 
with  such  feeling.  Even  the  riot  instigated  by  Demetrius 
is  related  in  such  a  way  as  to  leave  the  impression  that 
Paul  himself  was  brought  into  no  serious  danger  by  it. 
In  fact,  there  is  no  sign  in  the  account  of  Acts  that  his 
residence  in  Ephesus  was  a  time  of  peculiar  tribulation. 
Nothing  is  said  of  the  peril  which  was  daily  besetting  him 
at  the  time  he  wrote  his  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians ; 
nothing  of  his  conflict  in  the  arena;  nothing  of  the  narrow 
escape  to  which  he  refers  in  2  Cor.  i.  9  sq. ;  nothing  of  his 
imprisonment;  nothing  of  the  "trials  which  befell  him  by 
the  plots  of  the  Jews";1  nothing  of  the  anxiety  caused 
him  by  the  Corinthian  Christians,  and  of  his  active  inter- 
course with  them.  It  is  impossible  to  discover  a  satisfac- 
tory reason  for  the  intentional  omission  of  such  occurrences 
as  these,  and  we  are  again  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
sources  upon  which  the  author  relied  were  fragmentary, 
and,  as  in  so  many  other  cases,  failed  to  relate  the  events 
which  were  of  most  interest  and  concern  to  Paul  himself. 

At  the  time  Paul  wrote  his  First  Epistle  to  the  Corin- 
thians, it  would  seem  that  an  enlarged  opportunity  for 
usefulness  had  recently  opened  before  him  in  Ephesus,  and 
that  he  was  anticipating  a  period  of  uncommon  success.2 

is  doubtful,  for  the  trade  of  the  latter,  and  the  evil  done  by  him  to  Paul, 
suggest  rather  that  he  belonged  to  the  heathen  craftsmen  whose  hostility 
against  Paul  was  incited  by  Demetrius.  The  name  Alexander  was  a  very 
common  one,  and  not  much  weight  can  be  laid  upon  the  identity.  At  any 
rate,  it  would  seem  from  a  comparison  of  2  Tim.  iv.  14,  and  2  Cor.  i.  8,  that 
the  Alexander  mentioned  in  the  former  passage  was  one  of  those  whose  hos- 
tility brought  Paul  into  such  imminent  danger,  and  led  to  his  flight  from  the 
city.  See  below,  p.  409. 

i  Acts  xx.  19.  2  i  Cor.  xvi.  9. 


284  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

He  was  not  even  now  free  from  adversaries,  but  they  seem 
only  to  have  made  him  the  more  eager  to  push  the  work 
forward  and  to  take  advantage  of  the  open  door.  It 
may  well  be  that  his  arrest  and  imprisonment,  while  it 
had  put  a  stop  for  a  time  to  his  evangelistic  work,  had 
resulted  in  the  end  to  the  advantage  of  his  cause.  It  must 
at  any  rate  have  made  him  better  known  throughout  the 
city,  while  his  release  by  the  governor  would  naturally 
deter  his  enemies  from  making  another  attempt  at  once  to 
secure  his  condemnation.  There  is  a  hint,  in  Acts  xix.  22, 
that  Paul's  public  labors  in  the  school  of  Tyrannus  did  not 
continue  until  the  close  of  his  stay  in  the  city.  It  is 
altogether  likely  that  after  his  release  he  pursued  a  quieter 
but  none  the  less  effective  method,  and  thus  accomplished 
as  much  as  or  even  more  than  he  had  before,  without 
forcing  himself  needlessly  upon  the  attention  of  the  author- 
ities. At  the  same  time  he  knew  that  he  was  in  constant 
danger  and  that  his  adversaries  might  at  any  time  succeed 
in  compassing  his  death.1  He  apparently  continued  his 
labors,  however,  for  a  year  or  so  longer,  when  suddenly 
the  crisis  came,  and  he  was  obliged  to  leave  the  city  and 
make  his  way  to  Troas.2  Paul's  arrest  and  condemnation 
by  the  civil  authorities  thus  divided  his  labors  in  Ephesus 
into  two  periods;  the  first  marked  until  almost  its  close 
by  steady  growth  and  by  comparative  immunity  from  serious 
danger ;  the  second  exceedingly  troubled,  but  affording 
nevertheless  a  splendid  opportunity  for  successful  evange- 
listic work. 

There  is  no  reason  to.  doubt  that  when  he  first  arrived 
in  the  city,  he  entered  the  synagogue,  as  reported  by  the 
author  of  Acts,  and  preached  Christ  to  the  Jews  and 
through  them  to  their  Gentile  adherents.  If  there  was 
warrant  anywhere  for  such  a  course,  there  certainly  was  in 
Ephesus,  where  the  Jews  were  very  numerous  and  where 
they  had  large  numbers  of  proselytes.  And  the  statement 
finds  some  confirmation  in  the  present  instance  in  the  six- 
teenth chapter  of  Romans,  where  so  many  Jewish  names 
are  mentioned,  and  also  in  Paul's  address  to  the  elder 
1 1  Cor.  xv.  30.  2  2  Cor.  ii.  12. 


THE  WORK   OF   PAUL  285 

brethren  of  Ephesus,  in  which  he  reminds  them  that  he 
preached  while  among  them  both  to  Jews  and  Greeks. 
But  his  labors  in  the  synagogue  did  not  continue  long. 
Luke  is  certainly  following  a  trustworthy  source,  when 
he  reports  the  very  interesting  fact  that  Paul  taught  dur- 
ing the  greater  part  of  his  stay  in  Ephesus  in  the  school 
of  Tyrannus,  which  was  probably  a  public  hall  such  as  was 
used  as  a  lecture  room  by  the  philosophers  and  rhetori- 
cians of  the  day.  Paul  must  thus  have  appeared  to  the 
people  of  Ephesus  as  a  travelling  sophist,  a  representative 
of  a  class  which  was  very  large  at  that  time  in  all  parts  of 
the  empire ;  and  jealous  though  they  were  of  the  honor 
of  their  patron  goddess,  it  would  naturally  be  some  time 
before  they  thought  of  him  as  a  dangerous  character.  Only 
after  his  influence  had  spread  widely  in  the  city  and  prov- 
ince,1 and  the  effect  of  his  teaching  had  shown  itself  in  a 
marked  and  constantly  increasing  disrespect  on  the  part 
of  the  common  people  for  the  religion  of  their  fathers, 
would  the  attention  of  those  who  were  interested  either 
pecuniarily  or  otherwise  in  the  practice  of  that  religion  be 
turned  upon  him,  and  his  position  become  unsafe.  This 
is  the  only  recorded  instance  of  the  adoption  of  such  a 
method  by  Paul,  but  it  was  very  commonly  followed  by 
the  Christian  preachers  of  the  second  century,  and  had 
not  a  little  to  do  with  the  spread  of  the  idea  that  Chris- 
tianity was  a  philosophy  and  not  merely  a  religion  and  a 
life.  - 

This  first  and  apparently  more  public  period  of  Paul's 
activity  may  have  continued  for  a  couple  of  years,  but 
hardly  more  than  that ;  for  his  First  Epistle  to  the  Corin- 
thians was  written  nearly  a  year  before  his  departure  from 
the  city,  and  he  was  there  altogether  only  about  three 
years/ 

An  interesting  incident  connected  with  Paul's  stay  in 
Ephesus  is  related  in  Acts  xix.  1  sq.  According  to  that 
passage,  he  found  upon  his  arrival  in  the  city  certain  dis- 
ciples who  had  been  baptized  only  with  the  baptism  of 
John,  and  had  not  received  the  Holy  Spirit  when  they  be- 

*  Acts  xix.  10,  26.  2  Acts  xx.  31. 


286  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

lieved.  They  had,  in  fact,  not  even  heard  that  the  Spirit 
was  already  come,  as  they  expected  him  to  come  at  the  ad- 
vent of  the  Messiah.  The  account  is  considerably  confused 
and  the  author  himself  seems  not  to  have  had  a  very  clear 
conception  of  the  position  of  those  whom  he  describes.  He 
calls  them  disciples,  that  is,  Christian  disciples,  and  yet  he 
implies  that  they  knew  nothing  about  Jesus.1  But  in  spite 
of  the  confusion  in  the  account,  it  is  clear  enough  that  we 
have  to  deal  here  with  disciples  of  John  the  Baptist  pure 
and  simple,  and  with  their  conversion  under  the  influence 
of  Paul.  That  there  should  have  been  such  disciples  in 
Ephesus  is  not  in  the  least  surprising.  We  know  from 
the  Gospels  that  John's  followers  maintained  their  own 
separate  existence  even  after  their  master's  death,  and 
that  by  no  means  all  of  them  became  disciples  of  Jesus. 
But  as  they  were  expecting  the  coming  of  the  Messiah,  it 
was  not  difficult  for  Paul  to  convince  them  that  Jesus  was 
he.2  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  the  accuracy  of  the 
account  as  a  whole,  but  it  is  clear  that  the  author's  con- 
ception, that  it  was  a  special  function  of  the  apostles  to 
mediate  the  importation  of  the  Holy  Ghost  by  the  laying 
on  of  hands,  moulded  his  representation,  just  as  it  did 
in  connection  with  the  work  of  Peter  and  John  in  Samaria. 
A  little  farther  on  in  the  same  chapter  a  curious  tale  is 
told  of  certain  strolling  Jews  who  plied  the  trade  of 
exorcising  demons  3  —  a  common  trade  in  that  day,  as  we 
know  from  various  sources.4  Impressed  by  Paul's  power 
over  evil  spirits,  they  used  the  name  of  Jesus  as  a  formula 
of  adjuration  with  disastrous  results  to  themselves ;  and 
as  a  consequence  of  their  discomfiture  many  were  con- 
verted to  Christian  discipleship,  and  those  who  had  pursued 

1  Acts  xix.  4. 

2  The  existence  of  these  disciples  of  John  throws  light  back  upon  the  rela- 
tion between  John  and  Jesus.    See  p.  11,  above. 

8  Acts  xix.  13  sq. 

4  It  was  natural  in  an  age  when  lunacy  and  all  the  more  aggravated  forms 
of  nervous  disease  were  ascribed  to  the  direct  agency  of  evil  spirits  that 
exorcists  should  be  very  common.  There  were  many  of  them  among  the 
Jews  as  well  as  among  the  Pagans,  and  the  former  claimed  to  have  gained 
their  knowledge  of  their  art  from  Solomon.  See  the  remarkable  tale  in 
Josephus,  Ant.  viii.  2,  5,  and  compare  Matt.  xii.  27. 


THE  WORK   OF   PAUL  287 

magical  arts  publicly  renounced  their  practices  and  burned 
their  books.  The  account  lacks  clearness,1  but  there  can  be 
little  doubt  that  it  had  a  basis  in  fact,2  and  it  is  interesting 
as  another  instance  of  the  contact  of  Christianity  with  the 
common  superstition  of  the  day,3  and  as  another  evidence 
of  the  belief  of  the  early  Christians  that  the  Gospel  was  not 
simply  an  ethical  and  spiritual  force,  but  also  a  power 
adequate  for  the  production  of  marvellous  effects  in  the 
realm  of  nature.4 

Paul's  influence  while  he  was  in  Ephesus  was  not  con- 
fined to  the  city,  but  extended  throughout  a  large  part 
of  the  province  of  Asia.5  Epsenetus  is  spoken  of  as  the 
"  firstfruits  "  not  of  Ephesus,  but  of  "  Asia," 6  and  greetings 
are  sent  to  the  Corinthians  by  the  "churches  of  Asia."7 
Whether  Paul  himself  preached  in  other  cities  of  the 
province,  we  do  not  know.  He  certainly  did  not  in 
Colossse  and  Laodicea,8  though  we  should  naturally  ex- 
pect him  to  have  done  so,  if  he  had  made  any  general 
tour  of  the  province.  Troas  he  visited  at  least  three 
times,9  but  only  on  his  way  to  some  other  place,  and 
he  apparently  passed  through  on  each  occasion  without 
stopping  to  do  any  extended  missionary  work.10  He  proba- 
bly remained  the  greater  part  of  the  time  in  Ephesus, 

1  In  vs.  14  seven  men  are  mentioned ;  in  vs.  16  they  are  only  two  in  number. 

2  The  mention  of  the  name  of  Sceva  implies  some  actual  occurrence  as 
the  hasis  of  the  report. 

3  Cf.  also  Acts  viii.  9  sq.,  xiii.  6  sq.,  xvi.  16  sq.    The  effect  produced  by  the 
discomfiture  of  the  exorcists  resembles  that  produced  by  the  infliction  of 
blindness  upon  the  sorcerer  Elymas  according  to  Acts  xiii.  12.     In  both  cases 
the  conversion  of  onlookers  results. 

4  It  is,  perhaps,  not  without  significance  that  in  the  same  passage  the 
purely  marvellous  element  in  Paul's  own  activity  is  emphasized.     Instead  of 
merely  healing  those  with  whom  he  comes  in  contact  he  works  cures  at  a 
distance  by  means  of  handkerchiefs  or  towels  to  which  special  virtue  has 
been  imparted  by  contact  with  his  body. 

5  Cf.  Acts  xix.  10,  26,  xx.  18.  7  1  Cor.  xvi.  19. 

6  Rom.  xvi.  5.  8  Cf.  Col.  ii.  1. 

9  Acts  xvi.  8  sq.,  2  Cor.  ii.  12,  and  2  Tim.  iv.  13  (see  below,  p.  409)  ;  Acts 
xx.  5  sq. 

10  On  the  second  occasion  he  seems  to  have  intended  to  do  missionary  work 
in  the  city  (see  2  Cor.  ii.  12,  where  he  says  that  he  "came  to  Troas  for  the 
Gospel  of  Christ"),  but  though  the  opportunity  was  great,  as  might  be 
expected  in  such  an  important  seaport  town  and  commercial  centre,  he  was 
impatient  to  see  Titus,  and  get  news  from  him  touching  the  church  of 
Corinth,  and  so  he  hastened  on  to  Macedonia  after  apparently  only  a  brief  stay. 


288  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

the  metropolis,  and  reached  the  surrounding  country 
through  his  disciples,  At  any  rate,  he  doubtless  began 
in  Ephesus.1  Whether  Christianity  in  Asia  or  in  Ephe- 
sus  owed  its  origin  to  his  efforts,  or  whether  he  found 
Christians  already  there  when  he  arrived,  it  is  impossible 
to  say.  Paul  himself  makes  no  such  statement  as  he  does 
touching  the  church  of  Corinth.  Possibly  Andronicus  and 
Junias  were  working  there  before  he  came  upon  the  scene. 
But  it  is  safe  to  assume  that  whatever  Christianity  there 
may  have  been  in  the  province  was  largely  sporadic,  and 
that  a  systematic  and  effective  campaign  was  begun  first 
by  Paul.  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  Paul  had  any 
more  to  do  with  matters  of  organization  in  Ephesus  than  he 
had  had  in  Corinth.  Acts  xx.  17  and  28  are  quite  widely 
cited  as  an  evidence  that  there  were  regular  church  officers 
in  Ephesus  at  this  time,  and  the  conclusion  is  drawn  that 
Paul  must  have  had  something  to  do  with  their  appoint- 
ment or  with  the  institution  of  the  office  which  they  filled. 
But  there  is  no  sign  that  the  term  "elders"  in  vs.  17  means 
anything  more  than  elder  brethren,  and  vs.  28,  which  speaks 
of  them  as  appointed  overseers  or  bishops  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  makes  rather  against  than  for  their  official  charac- 
ter. Read  in  the  light  of  Paul's  words  in  1  Cor.  xvi. 
15,  16,  it  seems  clear  that  this  passage  refers  only  to  the 
spiritual  control  exercised  naturally  by  the  older  and  more 
mature  brethren,  without  other  appointment  than  that  of 
God's  Spirit,  who  calls  every  Christian  to  serve  the  church 
in  such  a  way  as  he  is  best  fitted  to  do. 

The  work  of  Paul  in  Ephesus  seems  to  have  been 
attended  with  a  large  measure  of  success,  but  it  is  a  re- 
markable fact  that  his  personal  influence  in  the  city  and 
the  province  was  apparently  very  short-lived.  That  he 
did  not  visit  Ephesus  again  after  he  left  for  Macedonia,  at 
the  close  of  his  three  years'  residence,  may  not  be  of  any 
significance,  for  external  circumstances  sufficiently  account 
for  his  failure  to  do  so.2  But  that  he  wrote  no  epistle  to 

1  Cf.  Acts  xx.  18. 

2  His  haste  while  on  his  way  to  Jerusalem  (Acts  xx.  1C)  and  his  subsequent 
arrest  and  imprisonment. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  289 

the  church,  so  far  as  we  know,  except  the  brief  note  of 
introduction  already  referred  to,  seems  a  little  strange  ; 
and  that  in  the  latter  part  of  the  first  century  the  church 
of  Asia,  which  was  in  a  very  flourishing  condition,  should 
be  practically  without  Pauline  traditions,  and  that  its  en- 
tire history  should  group  itself  about  another  name  than 
his,  is  still  stranger.1  What  happened  in  Asia  after  his 
Departure,  we  do  not  know ;  but  there  are  indications  that 
a  serious  defection  of  some  kind  took  place,  and  that  a 
break  in  the  historic  continuity  of  the  Asiatic  church 
occurred  which  made  necessary  a  practically  new  begin- 
ning. While  he  was  still  in  Corinth,  Paul  was  compelled 
to  caution  the  Christians  of  Ephesus  against  those  who 
were  causing  divisions  and  occasions  of  stumbling ; 2  and 
in  his  address  to  the  Ephesian  elders,  he  warns  them  that 
grievous  wolves  will  enter  after  his  departure,  and  that 
even  of  their  own  number  men  will  arise,  speaking  per- 
verse things.3  If  the  words  are  Paul's,  they  show  that  he 
already  saw  grave  reason  to  fear  for  the  stability  of  the 
church.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  they  were  put  into  his 
mouth  by  the  author,  they  testify  to  the  existence  of  a 
very  critical  state  of  affairs  either  before  or  at  the  time 
the  account  was  written.  Moreover,  the  two  epistles  to 
Timothy,  whether  they  are  Paul's  or  not,  bear  witness  to  a 
similar  condition  of  things ;  and  2  Tim.  i.  15  is  especially 
significant :  "  This  thou  knowest,  that  all  that  are  in  Asia 
turned  away  from  me."  It  is  with  this  sad  statement 
that  our  knowledge  of  the  personal  connection  between 
Paul  and  the  churches  of  Asia  comes  to  an  end.  We  shall 
return  to  Asia  again  a  little  later,  but  we  shall  find  other 
forces  in  control  at  that  time.  And  yet,  whatever  Paul's 
relations  to  the  Christians  there  during  his  later  years, 
and  whatever  eclipse  his  credit  and  his  authority  may 
have  suffered,  it  is  clear  that  the  impress  of  his  thinking 
and  teaching  continued  to  be  felt  long  after  he  had  passed 
away,  and  that  the  peculiar  form  which  the  Christianity 

1  Cf .  the  Apocalypse  and  the  Gospel  and  Epistles  of  John ;  also  Papias 
(quoted  by  Eusebius:  H.  E.  III.  39),  Polycarp  (Eusebius:  H.  E.  V.  20),  and 
Polycrates  (Eusebius:   H,  E.  III.  31).    .See  p.  606  sq.,  below. 

2  Rom.  xvi.  17  sq.  3  Acts  xx.  29  sq. 


290  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

of  Asia  Minor  took  on  in  the  late  first  and  early  second 
centuries  was  due  in  no  small  part  to  him.1 

9.   TROUBLE  IN  THE  CHURCH  OF  CORINTH 

It  was  while  Paul  was  still  residing  in  Ephesus,  that 
difficulties  arose  in  the  church  of  Corinth  which  demanded 
his  serious  attention.  His  work  there  had  been  very  suc- 
cessful, and  he  had  left  the  city  with  the  hope  that  Chris- 
tianity was  so  firmly  established,  and  the  Spirit  of  Christ 
so  completely  in  control,  that  all  would  be  well  with  his 
converts,  and  that  the  development  of  the  church  would 
be  steady  and  normal.  But  after  he  had  been  in  Ephesus 
about  two  years,  some  members  of  the  household  of  a  cer- 
tain Chloe  arrived  from  Corinth  and  brought  him  news  of 
a  very  disquieting  character.  The  proverbial  party  spirit 
of  the  Greeks  had  made  itself  felt  even  within  the  Chris- 
tian brotherhood,  and  rival  factions  were  appearing  which 
threatened  to  put  an  end  to  the  peace  and  unity  of  the 
church.  "  Now  this  I  mean,"  Paul  writes  in  1  Cor.  i.  12, 
44  that  each  of  you  saith,  I  am  of  Paul ;  and  I  of  Apollos  ; 
and  I  of  Cephas ;  and  I  of  Christ."  The  immediate 
occasion  of  this  factional  development  is  not  far  to  seek. 
It  was  evidently  due  to  the  presence  of  Apollos,  who  had 
come  to  Corinth  not  long  after  Paul's  departure  from  the 
city,  and  had  labored  there  for  some  time.2  Of  Apollos 
himself  we  know  very  little.  According  to  Acts  xviii.  24, 
he  was  a  Jew  of  Alexandria,  well  versed  in  the  Scriptures 
and  an  eloquent  and  powerful  speaker.  The  author  of 
the  Acts  represents  him  as  already  a  Christian  before  he 
reached  Ephesus ;  but  he  says  that  though  he  had  been 
instructed  in  the  way  of  the  Lord,  and  spake  and  taught 
carefully  the  things  concerning  Jesus,  he  knew  only  the 
baptism  of  John.3 

This  description  of  Apollos  is  not  altogether  clear. 
When  it  is  said  that  he  knew  only  the  baptism  of  John, 
it  is  evidently  the  author's  intention  to  class  him  with 
the  Johannine  disciples  spoken  of  at  the  beginning  of 

i  See  below,  p.  487  sq.  2  Acts  xviii.  27.  8  vs.  26, 


THE  WORK   OF  PAUL  291 

the  next  chapter.  But  as  has  been  already  seen,  they  did 
not  know  the  "  things  concerning  Jesus  "  ;  in  other  words, 
they  did  not  know  that  he  was  the  Messiah.  When  they 
learned  that  he  was,  they  must  have  ceased  to  be  disci- 
ples of  John,  and  must  have  become  disciples  of  Jesus  ;  for, 
like  their  master,  they  were  looking  for  the  coming  of  the 
Christ.  But  as  soon  as  a  disciple  of  John  became  a  disciple 
of  Jesus  the  Christ,  he  knew  more  than  the  baptism  of  John, 
as  Luke  understands  the  phrase,  whether  he  had  been  bap- 
tized into  the  name  of  Jesus  or  not ;  for  it  was  an  essential 
part  of  his  belief  that  the  Messiah  at  his  coming  would  bap- 
tize with  the  Holy  Spirit.  And  so  if  Apollos  knew  that  Jesus 
was  the  Messiah,  as  reported  in  vs.  25a,  then  vs.  25b  can 
hardly  be  accurate  in  recording  that  he  knew  only  the  bap- 
tism of  John,  which  means,  as  Luke  uses  the  words,  that  he 
did  not  know  the  Spirit  had  been  given.1  On  the  other 
hand,  if  the  latter  statement  is  correct,  he  apparently  did  not 
know  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  and  the  report  that  he 
"  had  been  instructed  in  the  way  of  the  Lord,"  and  "  spake 
and  taught  carefully  the  things  concerning  Jesus,"  would 
seem  to  be  erroneous.  It  is  altogether  probable  that  this 
was  the  case,  and  that  Apollos  was  really  only  a  disciple  of 
John  ;  for  otherwise  it  is  difficult  to  see  what  Priscilla  and 
Aquila  can  have  had  to  do  in  the  matter.  It  seems  clear  that 
they  did  for  him  what  Paul  did  for  the  disciples  of  John  men- 
tioned in  the  next  chapter ;  that  they  told  him  of  Jesus, 
and  were  thus  the  agents  in  his  conversion  to  the  Christian 
faith.  There  can  be  little  doubt  at  any  rate  that  the  original 
source  which  Luke  used,  intended  thus  to  represent  them. 
The  first  part  of  vs.  25  must,  then,  have  been  added  to  the 
original  account  by  the  author  of  the  Acts.  He  may  have 
been  led  to  do  this  because  he  could  not  imagine  Apollos 
coming  from  Alexandria  to  preach  in  the  synagogue  at 
Ephesus,  unless  he  was  a  Christian  evangelist.  That  a 
Jew  could  proclaim  the  Messiah  and  yet  not  preach  Jesus, 

1  Luke's  conception  of  Apollos  as  a  Christian  who  knew  Jesus  to  be  the 
Messiah,  but  did  not  know  that  the  Holy  Spirit  had  been  given,  is  entirely  in 
line  with  his  external  conception  of  the  Spirit  exhibited  in  so  many  passages, 
and  with  his  idea,  revealed  in  the  first  two  chapters  of  the  Acts,  that  the  dis- 
ciples received  the  Holy  Ghost  for  the  first  time  at  Pentecost, 


292  THE   APOSTOLIC  AGE 

was  doubtless  inconceivable  to  him.  We  are  therefore 
to  think  of  Apollos  as  a  disciple  of  John  who  was  carrying 
on  the  work  of  his  master  and  preaching  to  his  country- 
men repentance  in  view  of  the  approaching  kingdom  of 
God.1  Convinced  by  Priscilla  and  Aquila  that  Jesus  was 
the  Messiah  whom  he  had  been  expecting,  he  would  natu- 
rally carry  on  the  same  kind  of  work  he  had  been  doing 
and  would  become  a  Christian  evangelist.  His  large  knowl- 
edge of  the  Scriptures  and  his  experience  in  expounding 
them  in  a  Messianic  sense  would,  of  course,  give  him  great 
power  as  a  Christian  preacher  among  the  Gentiles  as  well 
as  among  the  Jews.  For,  as  we  know  from  many  sources 
the  argument  from  prophecy  was  used  with  good  effect  in 
early  generations  for  the  conviction  of  the  former  as  well 
as  of  the  latter,  and  the  Jewish  Scriptures  were  studied  as 
diligently  by  the  converts  from  the  ranks  of  the  heathen 
as  by  their  Hebrew  brethren.  The  author  of  the  Acts,  it 
is  true,  seems  to  imply  that  Apollos  labored  while  in 
Achaia  as  he  had  in  Ephesus,  chiefly,  if  not  solely,  among 
the  Jews.2  But  1  Cor.  iii.  5  sq.  makes  it  evident  that 
he  followed  in  Paul's  footsteps,  and  though  the  size  of 
the  church  may  have  been  increased  by  his  labors,  its 
character  was  not  changed ;  it  was  still  as  largely  Gentile 
after  Apollos  left  as  it  had  been  before  he  arrived.  Apollos 
was  in  fact  as  truly  an  apostle  to  the  Gentiles  as  Paul 
himself  or  any  of  Paul's  fellow-workers. 

The  appearance  of  such  a  preacher  as  Apollos  must 
have  been  hailed  with  delight  by  the  Christians  of  Corinth. 
He  was  just  the  kind  of  a  man  to  attract  and  interest  a 
Greek  audience.  He  had  all  the  qualifications  which  the 
situation  demanded.  His  eloquence,  his  learning,  and  his 
experience  in  the  allegorical  interpretation  of  the  Script- 
ures, which  he  can  hardly  have  failed  to  acquire  in  Alex- 
andria, would  all  combine  to  impress  those  that  heard  him, 
and  he  must  have  been  popular  from  the  very  start.  It  is 

1  For  other  interpretations  of  the  passage  relating  to  Apollos,  see  the  com- 
mentaries in  loc.,  especially  Wendt  in  the  seventh  edition  of  Meyer's  Com- 
mentary on  Acts.  Wendt  throws  out  the  whole  of  vs.  2f>,  regarding  Apollos 
as  a  Jew  who  had  no  connection  either  with  John  or  with  Jesus. 

9  Acts  xviii.  28, 


THE   WOKK   OF   PAUL  293 

certainly  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  where  party  spirit  was 
naturally  so  strong  and  where  the  contrast  between  the 
preaching  of  Apollos  and  of  Paul  was  so  marked,  there 
should  be  many  in  the  Corinthian  church  who  proclaimed 
loudly  their  preference  for  the  former  and  declared  him  to 
be  a  greater  man  than  Paul.  This  incipient  Apollos-party 
may  have  had  its  strength  largely  among  his  own  converts, 
who  had  never  known  Paul;  but  there  was  much  in  his 
teaching  which  would  seem  even  to  those  who  had  learned 
the  Gospel  from  Paul's  lips  more  profound  and  philosophi- 
cal than  anything  the  latter  had  to  offer,  and  many  of  them 
must  have  been  inclined  to  mingle  their  plaudits  with  those 
of  the  others,  and  to  forget  their  own  spiritual  father.  But 
the  effort  to  magnify  Apollos  at  the  expense  of  Paul  must 
of  course  arouse  the  animosity  of  others  who  were  more 
loyal  to  the  memory  of  the  great  apostle,  and  they  in  turn 
would  loudly  proclaim  their  devotion,  and  thus  the  har- 
mony and  peace  of  the  church  would  speedily  be  disturbed 
by  rival  factions.  Apollos  himself  was  evidently  entirely 
innocent  in  the  matter.  He  had  no  intention  of  stirring 
up  party  feeling  when  he  went  to  Corinth,  and  of  under- 
mining Paul's  influence  and  reputation.  It  may  be  indeed 
that  the  trouble  began  only  after  he  had  left  Corinth,  or  it 
is  possible  that  he  took  his  departure  in  consequence  of  it, 
not  wishing  to  encourage  his  partisans  in  any  way.  At 
any  rate,  Paul  bore  him  no  grudge  and  held  him  in  no 
way  responsible.  He  speaks  of  him  in  his  First  Epistle  to 
the  Corinthians  in  terms  of  the  fullest  confidence,  and  he 
even  urged  him  to  return  to  Corinth  in  response  to  the 
wishes  of  the  Christians  there.1  The  two  men  were  clearly 
on  the  best  of  terms  and  in  complete  sympathy  in  their 
work.  But  this  fact  makes  it  plain  that  the  difference 
between  the  preaching  of  Paul  and  Apollos  was  rather  a 
difference  of  form  than  of  substance.  They  did  not  pro- 
claim two  Gospels,  but  one  and  the  same  Gospel.  Their 
method  and  their  style  of  preaching  might  differ,  but  they 
were  one  in  their  aims,  one  in  their  devotion  to  Christ,  one 
in  their  conception  of  Christianity  and  the  Christian  life. 

1 1  Cor.  xvi.  12. 


294  THE   APOSTOLIC    AGE 

Had  he  not  known  this,  Paul  could  not  have  said  that  he 
had  planted  and  Apollos  had  watered,  and  that  "  both  he 
that  planteth  and  he  that  watereth  are  one." l 

The  rise  of  the  two  parties  that  have  been  described 
might  easily  lead  to  the  formation  of  a  third.  The  empha- 
sis laid  upon  the  merits  of  their  respective  heroes  by  the 
partisans  of  Apollos  and  of  Paul  would  naturally  suggest 
to  others  an  appeal  from  both  of  them  to  the  original 
apostles  of  the  Lord,  who  possessed  a  dignity  enjoyed  by 
no  other  missionaries  however  able  and  successful.  Thus 
the  Cephas-party  arose,  taking  its  name  from  the  one  who 
had  been  from  the  beginning  the  leader  and  spokesman  of 
the  Twelve.  It  is  not  necessary  to  suppose,  as  some  have 
done,  that  Peter  had  himself  visited  Corinth.  In  view  of 
the  fact  that  Paul  nowhere  refers  to  such  a  visit  and  while 
he  speaks  of  himself  as  planting  and  Apollos  as  watering 
says  nothing  of  the  labors  of  Peter,  it  seems  extremely 
improbable  that  he  had.2  Dionysius  of  Corinth,  writing 
toward  the  end  of  the  second  century,  says  that  the  church 
of  Corinth  was  founded  by  Peter  and  Paul ; 3  but  he  was 
interested  to  secure  for  his  own  church  a  dignity  equal  to 
that  of  Rome,  and  the  reference  to  the  Cephas-party  in 
First  Corinthians  might  easily  have  seemed  to  him  a  suffi- 
cient basis  for  the  assumption  that  Peter  had  honored 
Corinth  with  his  presence.  In  any  case,  even  if  Dionysius' 
statement  were  to  be  regarded  as  proving  that  Peter  actu- 
ally visited  the  city,  it  could  hardly  be  supposed  that  he 
arrived  there  before  the  composition  of  First  Corinthians. 

It  is  very  likely  that  many  of  those  who  ranged  'them- 
selves under  the  banner  of  Peter  were  of  Jewish  birth,4  but 
it  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  they  all  were,  and  there 
is  no  reason  to  think  that  any  of  them  were  Judaizing  in 
their  tendency.  They  evidently  met  on  friendly  terms 
and  communed  freely  with  the  other  Christians  of  Corinth, 
who  were  certainly  largely  Gentiles,  and  they  thus  lived 

1 1  Cor.  iii.  6  sq.  2  Cf.  also  1  Cor.  iv.  6. 

8  Quoted  by  Eusebius :  H.  E.  II.  25,  8.  So  far  as  I  am  aware,  there  is  no 
other  reference  to  Peter's  Corinthian  visit  in  early  Christian  literature. 

4  The  use  of  the  Hebrew  name  Cephas  instead  of  the  Greek  Peter  is  per- 
haps an  indication  of  this. 


THE   WORK    OF   PAUL  295 

in  a  way  entirely  inconsistent  with  the  principles  of  the 
Judaizers.  The  rise  of  a  party,  calling  itself  by  the  name 
of  Peter,  suggests,  of  course,  that  those  who  composed  it 
regarded  him  and  the  rest  of  the  Twelve  as  apostles  in  a 
special  sense,  and  that  Paul  and  Apollos  were  ranked  to- 
gether in  their  minds  over  against  the  others,  and  placed 
on  a  distinctly  lower  plane  than  they.  And  it  may  be  due 
in  part  to  this  that  Paul  emphasized  his  own  apostleship,1 
and  declared  that  it  was  a  matter  of  small  moment  to  him 
that  he  was  judged  by  the  Corinthians,  for  he  was  account- 
able as  an  apostle  to  the  Lord,  and  not  to  men.2  But  such 
overvaluation  of  the  dignity  and  authority  of  the  Twelve 
as  compared  with  Paul,  by  no  means  involves  a  Judaizing 
purpose  and  practice,  nor  does  it  imply  the  desire  to  under- 
mine and  destroy  Paul's  influence  and  credit.  If  there  was 
any  such  desire  in  the  Corinthian  church,  or  if  there  was 
an  inclination  to  Judaize  in  any  way,  Paul  was  certainly 
not  aware  of  it  at  the  time  he  wrote  his  first  epistle,  for 
that  epistle  contains  no  hint  of  anything  of  the  kind. 

It  is  commonly  supposed  that  in  addition  to  the  parties 
which  have  been  described,  there  was  also  a  fourth,  or  Christ 
party,  in  the  Corinthian  church.  Its  character  is  widely  dis- 
puted, but  the  prevailing  view  is  that  it  was  composed  of 
Judaizers.3  The  chief  ground  for  this  opinion  is  found  in 
the  tenth  and  eleventh  chapters  of  Second  Corinthians. 
The  persons  attacked  by  Paul  in  those  chapters  are  com- 
monly regarded  as  Judaizers,  and  as  they  apparently 
claimed  to  belong  to  Christ,  and  to  be  his  apostles  and 
ministers  in  a  peculiar  sense,4  it  has  been  assumed  that 
they  were  members  of  the  Christ-party  supposed  to  be  re- 
ferred to  in  First  Corinthians.  But  even  granting  that 
they  were  Judaizers,  as  they  probably  were  not,  they  can 
hardly  be  identified  with  the  Christ-party  of  that  epistle, 
for  they  were  strangers  who  had  recently  come  to  Corinth 
with  letters  of  introduction,  while  the  Christ-party  was 
evidently  composed  of  members  of  the  Corinthian  church. 

1 1  Cor.  ix.  2  i  Cor.  iv.  3  sq. 

3  So,  for  instance,  Weizsacker,  I.e.  S.  275  sq.,  299  sq.  (Eng.  Trans.,  Vol.  L 
pp.  329,  364) . 

*2Cor.x.7,xi.  13,23. 


296  THE   APOSTOLIC    AGE 

Moreover,  if  there  was  in  Corinth  at  the  time  Paul  wrote 
his  first  epistle  a  party  composed  of  such  men  as  he  de« 
nounces  in  2  Cor.  x.  and  xi.,  it  is  inconceivable  that  he 
should  nowhere  in  that  epistle  attack  them  or  defend  him- 
self against  them.  But  not  simply  is  it  a  mistake  to  iden- 
tify the  persons  attacked  in  2  Corinthians  with  the  Christ- 
party  of  1  Cor.  L,  it  is  equally  a  mistake  to  suppose  that 
there  was  any  party  in  the  Corinthian  church  arrogating 
to  itself  the  name  of  Christ  in  an  especial  and  exclusive 
sense.  Had  there  been,  Paul  could  hardly  have  spoken 
in  the  unguarded  way  he  does  in  his  epistle  about  those 
who  were  Christ's.  We  might  have  expected,  for  instance, 
that  he  would  take  occasion  to  say  in  such  a  passage  as 
1  Cor.  xv.  23,  "  Not  those  who  merely  claim  to  be  Christ's, 
like  the  members  of  the  Christ-party,  but  those  who  really 
are  Christ's." 

But  the  decisive  argument  against  the  existence  of  any 
Christ-party  in  the  Corinthian  church  is  to  be  found  in 
1  Cor.  iii.  22  sq.  In  that  passage,  at  the  close  of  his  dis- 
cussion of  the  divisions,  and  at  the  very  climax  of  his  de- 
nunciation of  the  party  spirit,  Paul  speaks  of  three  parties, 
but  says  nothing  whatever  of  the  fourth,  or  Christ-party, 
which,  according  to  the  common  theory,  was  the  worst  and 
most  dangerous  of  all.  And  more  than  that,  he  plays 
directly  into  the  hands  of  that  party,  if  it  existed,  by 
exhorting  all  the  Corinthians  to  range  themselves  under 
the  banner  of  Christ.  "All  things  are  yours,"  he  cries, 
"  whether  Paul,  or  Apollos,  or  Cephas ;  ...  all  are  yours : 
and  ye  are  Christ's."  In  view  of  these  considerations,  it 
is  difficult  to  suppose  that  there  was  a  fourth  faction  in 
Corinth,  calling  itself  by  the  name  of  Christ.  And  indeed, 
when  carefully  examined,  the  passage  in  which  the  parties 
are  referred  to  is  seen  itself  to  imply  the  existence  of  only 
three.  The  words  in  vs.  13,  "  Is  Christ  divided? "  indicate 
that  the  fault  of  the  Corinthians  was  not  that  they  were  re- 
jecting Christ,  and  substituting  another  leader  for  him,  but 
that  they  were  dividing  him.  The  implication  is,  that  they 
all  regarded  themselves  as  alike  under  the  banner  of  Christ, 
but  that  some  were  Pauline  Christians,  some  Apollos-Chris- 


THE  WORK  OF  PAUL  297 

tians,  some  Cephas-Christians.  It  seems  clear,  therefore, 
that  the  fourth  term  of  vs.  12  was  not,  like  the  first  three 
terms,  a  party  watchword,  but  that  it  constituted  the  cry 
of  other  Corinthian  disciples  who  belonged  to  none  of  the 
three  factions,  and  who,  disgusted  at  the  display  of  party 
spirit,  declared  against  all  such  divisions  and  announced 
their  allegiance  to  Christ  alone.  With  such  a  course  Paul 
himself  must  have  been  in  hearty  sympathy.  It  was,  in 
fact,  just  what  he  exhorted  all  the  others  to  do.  "  Do  not 
divide  Christ,"  he  says  in  effect.  "  We,  Paul  and  Apollos 
and  Cephas,  whom  ye  are  making  the  leaders  of  your  par- 
ties, are  only  builders ;  Christ  is  the  one  foundation  upon 
whom  we  all  build;  we  are  all  Christ's,  and  ye  are  all 
Christ's." l 

Paul  therefore  learned  through  the  members  of  the 
household  of  Chloe  of  the  existence  not  of  four,  but 
of  three  factional  parties  within  the  church  of  Corinth. 
But  it  is  clear  that  though  the  church  was  thus  torn 
and  divided,  open  rupture  had  not  yet  occurred.  All  of 
the  disciples  still  met  together  as  one  household  of  faith, 
and  carried  on  their  worship  in  common.2  They  were  all 
addressed  by  Paul  as  one  church,3  and  the  epistle  which 
they  wrote  him  was  sent,  apparently,  in  the  name  of  all.4 
Nevertheless,  though  the  parties  were  yet  in  their  incipi- 
ency,  and  though  the  church  was  still  intact,  there  was 
decided  danger  in  allowing  such  a  divisive  tendency  to 
go  on  unchecked ;  and  so,  being  unable  to  go  at  once  to 
Corinth  himself,  as  he  wished  to  do,  Paul  despatched 
Timothy  thither  as  his  representative,  hoping  that  he 
might  succeed  in  harmonizing  the  various  factions  and 
in  restoring  peace  to  the  church.5 

1  On  the  Corinthian  parties,  see  especially  Pfleiderer:    Urchristenthum, 
S.  89  sq.     See  also  Heinrici  in  Meyer's  Commentary  on  First  Corinthians, 
7th  ed.  p.  7,  27  sq.,  where  the  various  views  and  the  literature  upon  the 
subject  are  given  with  considerable  fulness. 

2  1  Cor.  xi.  18,  xiv.  26.  3  i  Cor.  i.  2,  v.  9.  4  Cf.  1  Cor.  vii.  1. 

61  Cor.  iv.  17.  This  journey  is  without  doubt  the  one  referred  to  in 
Acts  xix.  22.  According  to  that  passage,  Timothy  upon  leaving  Ephesus  went 
to  Macedonia,  and  it  is  implied  in  1  Corinthians  that  he  took  that  road  to 
Corinth,  for  Paul,  though  writing  after  Timothy's  departure,  expected  his  let- 
ter, which  he  doubtless  sent  by  the  direct  sea-route,  to  reach  there  before  him 
(ICor.  xvi.  10). 


298  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

Meanwhile,  soon  after  Timothy's  departure,  other  Co- 
rinthian Christians  made  their  appearance  in  Ephesus, 
bringing  with  them  still  farther  news  of  a  disturbing  char- 
acter.1 As  has  been  already  remarked,  Corinth  was  one  of 
the  most  immoral  cities  in  the  world,  and  it  was  inevitable 
that  the  debased  ethical  tone  of  the  community  at  large 
should  make  itself  felt  even  within  the  church.  There 
might  be  a  sincere  desire  on  the  part  of  the  disciples  to 
live  worthily  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  but  their  standards 
were  necessarily  low,  and  many  things  must  seem  to  them 
comparatively  harmless  which  in  other  less  corrupt  commu- 
nities would  be  universally  condemned.  Thus  they  were 
inclined  to  regard  fornication  as  the  gratification  of  a 
natural  appetite,  involving  no  greater  sin  than  eating  and 
drinking.  This  was  the  common  estimate  of  it  in  Corinth, 
and  it  is  therefore  hardly  to  be  wondered  at  that  there 
were  Christians  who  held  the  same  view.  So  long  as  Paul 
himself  was  present,  such  an  opinion  could  hardly  prevail 
within  the  church;  but  after  his  departure,  as  the  number 
of  disciples  multiplied,  it  would  be  easy  for  it  to  find  lodg- 
ment and  it  would  be  difficult  for  those  who  did  not  like  it 
to  prove  it  wrong.  Already  some  time  before  the  events 
which  we  have  been  describing,  Paul  seems  to  have  learned 
that  the  tendency  was  abroad  in  the  church  to  look  with 
altogether  too  much  leniency  upon  those  who  practised  for- 
nication, and  as  a  consequence  he  had  written  an  epistle  in 
which  he  had  exhorted  the  Corinthians  to  have  nothing  to 
do  with  such  persons,  and  to  hold  themselves  entirely  aloof 
from  them.2  His  remonstrances,  however,  had  not  had  the 
desired  effect.  Instead  of  doing  what  he  commanded,  they 
were  actually  tolerating  within  their  circle  a  man  who  was 
living  with  his  stepmother  in  defiance  of  the  common  senti- 
ments of  decency  that  prevailed  even  in  the  world  outside. 
And  they  were  not  simply  tolerating  him,  they  were  even 
defending  his  course  and  were  showing  no  signs  of  sorrow  or 

*That  this  additional  news  was  brought  not  by  the  household  of  Chloe, 
but  by  later  arrivals,  seems  to  appear  from  the  fact  that  Paul  gives  as  his 
reason  for  sending  Timothy  to  Corinth  not  the  other  disorders  to  which  he 
refers  in  his  epistle,  but  only  the  divisions  which  have  been  described. 

2  1  Cor.  v.  9.    This  epistle  is  no  longer  extant. 


THE  WORK  OF  PAUL  299 

of  shame.1  Moreover,  they  were  justifying  their  utter  dis- 
regard of  Paul's  direction  not  to  associate  with  fornicators, 
by  claiming  that  such  a  command  was  impracticable,  for 
they  could  not  avoid  associating  with  them  unless  they  left 
the  world  altogether.2  Their  action  in  the  matter  was  not 
due  to  a  contempt  for  Paul's  authority,  and  did  not  indicate 
that  they  cared  nothing  about  him  or  his  wishes ;  for  they 
wrote  him  quite  an  extended  epistle  in  which  they  asked  his 
instruction  concerning  a  variety  of  subjects.  But  it  is  evi- 
dent that  they  had  no  such  conception  as  he  had  of  the  sin- 
fulness  of  fornication,  and  that  they  regarded  his  scruples 
as  due  to  mere  prudery.  They  were  concerned,  therefore, 
rather  to  defend  their  course  of  action  than  to  change  it. 

But  the  tendency  of  the  Corinthians  to  look  with  indif- 
ference upon  sins  of  the  flesh  was  not  the  only  additional 
source  of  anxiety  to  Paul.  Quarrelsomeness  and  a  love  of 
litigation,  common  fruits  of  the  natural  self-assertiveness  of 
the  Greeks,  and  of  their  almost  morbid  sense  of  individual 
rights,  had  begun  to  play  havoc  with  the  peace  of  the  Chris- 
tian brotherhood.3  There  were  also  very  serious  disorders 
connected  with  their  religious  exercises;  and  it  seems  that 
doubts  were  beginning  to  prevail  touching  the  reality  of  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  that  even  the  resurrection  of 
Christ  was  denied  by  some.  Such  doubts  affected  not  a 
mere  subordinate  doctrine,  but  the  very  heart  of  Paul's 
Gospel,  and  it  is  no  wonder  that  he  felt  deeply  concerned. 

But  in  addition  to  the  disquieting  reports  which  have 
been  referred  to,  there  was  received  by  Paul,  soon  after 
Timothy's  departure,  an  epistle  from  the  Corinthians 
written  in  reply  to  the  one  he  had  sent  them  some 
time  before.4  The  contents  of  this  letter,  which  is  no 

1 1  Cor.  v.  2.  2  cf .  1  Cor.  v.  10  sq.  s  1  Cor.  vi.  1  sq. 

4  The  epistle  was  probably  brought  by  Stephanas,  Fortunatus  and  Achaicus, 
to  whom  Paul  refers  in  1  Cor.  xvi.  17.  It  may  have  been  they,  also,  that  brought 
him  the  news  of  the  sad  state  of  affairs  that  existed  in  the  Corinthian  church ; 
but  his  statement  that  they  had  supplied  that  which  was  lacking  on  the  part 
of  the  Corinthians  and  had  refreshed  his  spirit  makes  it  doubtful.  Still,  it  is 
possible  that  they  brought  him  good  news  in  addition  to  the  bad,  and  Paul 
may  have  chosen  at  the  close  of  his  epistle  to  refer  only  to  that  which  was  a 
cause  of  rejoicing  to  him.  He  may  not  have  wished,  moreover,  to  have  the 
Corinthians  know  that  these  men  had  reported  bad  things  of  them. 


300  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

longer  extant,  can  be  gathered  at  least  in  part  from 
First  Corinthians.  The  Christians  of  Corinth  had  appar- 
ently given  utterance  in  it  to  their  misunderstanding  of 
Paul's  epistle  touching  association  with  fornicators1  and 
had  then  asked  his  advice  concerning  various  practical 
questions  about  which  their  own  opinions  were  divided: 
for  instance,  whether  it  was  right  for  a  disciple  to  marry  ; 2 
whether  a  believing  husband  or  wife  ought  to  separate 
from  an  unbelieving  companion ; 3  whether  it  was  lawful 
for  a  Christian  to  eat  meat  sacrificed  to  idols ; 4  and  finally 
what  was  to  be  thought  of  spiritual  gifts,  and  of  their  rela- 
tive value.5  They  seem  also  to  have  asked  for  directions 
in  regard  to  the  collection  for  the  saints  of  Jerusalem,6  and 
to  have  requested  that  Apollos  might  return  to  them.7 
It  was  in  reply  to  this  lost  letter  that  Paul  wrote  the 
epistle  which  is  commonly  known  as  First  Corinthians. 
After  commending  his  readers  in  general  terms,  he  plunged 
at  once  into  the  subject  which  had  very  likely  been  upper- 
most in  his  mind  ever  since  the  arrival  of  Chloe's  house- 
hold. Though  he  had  already  sent  Timothy  to  heal  the 
dissensions  of  which  he  had  been  told,  he  was  still  troubled 
about  them,  and  he  could  not  write  to  the  Corinthians 
without  referring  to  them.  He  doubtless  saw  in  the  imme- 
diate return  to  Corinth  of  the  messengers  from  that  church, 
a  welcome  opportunity  to  prepare  the  Corinthians  for  the 
coming  of  Timothy  and  to  reinforce  his  efforts.  What  he 
says  upon  the  subject  is  directed  not  primarily  against  the 
parties  as  such,  but  against  the  party  spirit  which  underlay 
them.  And  yet  he  takes  pains  to  emphasize  the  ground- 
lessness of  the  dissatisfaction  with  himself  and  with  his 
preaching  which  was  felt  by  many  after  they  had  heard 
Apollos.  He  had  not  preached,  as  Apollos  had,  in  such 
a  way  as  to  impress  the  multitude  with  his  wisdom,  but  to 
those  who  had  the  ability  to  perceive  it,  the  true  wisdom 
of  the  Gospel  which  he  had  proclaimed  was  clearly  mani- 

1  Cf .  1  Cor.  v.  9  sq.  «  1  Cor.  vii.  10.  5  1  Cor.  xii.  1. 

2  1  Cor.  vii.  1.  4  1  Cor.  viii.  1.  6  1  Cor.  xvi.  1. 

7  1  Cor.  xvi.  12.  All  of  these  subjects  Paul  introduces  with  the  phrase 
irepl  84,  as  if  referring  in  each  case  to  matters  mentioned  by.  the  Corin- 
thians. 


THE  WORK   OF  PAUL  301 

fest.1  Had  they  been  more  truly  spiritual,  he  might  have 
imparted  to  them  many  of  the  deep  things  of  God,  but 
they  had  not  been  ready  to  receive  them,  as  was  shown 
very  plainly  by  the  effect  which  the  preaching  of  Apollos 
had  had  upon  them.2  Their  hold  upon  the  great  central 
truth  of  the  Gospel  was  so  slight,  that  they  lost  it  as  they 
listened  to  Apollos,  and  failed  to  distinguish  between  the 
essential  and  non-essential  in  his  teaching,  and  thus  sup- 
posed that  they  were  hearing  from  his  lips  another  and  more 
profound  Gospel  than  they  had  learned  from  Paul.  It 
was  not  the  fault  of  Apollos  that  they  had  thus  misunder- 
stood him ;  he  had  preached  the  true  Gospel ;  but  it  was 
the  fault  of  their  own  lack  of  spiritual  discernment.  There 
is  an  implication,  to  be  sure,  in  what  Paul  says,3  that  Apollos 
may  have  built  upon  the  one  foundation  which  they  both 
recognized  something  else  than  gold,  silver,  and  precious 
stones ;  but  the  important  thing  was  that  he  had  not  built 
upon  another  foundation,  and  his  teaching  was  therefore 
at  bottom  one  with  Paul's,  and  the  Corinthians  should 
never  have  overlooked  the  fact.  Every  attempt  to  set 
the  two  over  against  each  other  and  to  use  their  names  as 
party  watchwords  was  entirely  unjustifiable.  So  far  as  the 
Cephas-party  was  concerned,  Paul  thought  it  necessary 
to  say  little  about  it.  His  general  attack  upon  the  party 
spirit  was,  of  course,  directed  against  those  who  appealed 
to  the  name  of  Cephas  as  well  as  against  the  others ;  but 
he  seems  to  have  felt  that  the  third  party  would  disap- 
pear if  the  others  did,  and  that,  if  the  supremacy  of  Christ 
and  the  subordination  of  all  his  ministers  were  recognized 
as  it  should  be,  there  would  be  no  more  difficulty.  It  was 
not  so  much  an  undervaluation  of  himself  that  was  causing 
the  trouble  as  an  undervaluation  of  Christ;  and  he  was 
concerned  consequently  not  chiefly  to  exhibit  his  own 
superiority  to  others,  but  to  magnify  Christ,  and  to  em- 
phasize the  nothingness  of  all  men,  himself  included,  in 
comparison  with  Christ,  to  whom  all  belong.4  Only  at  the 
close  does  he  remind  the  Corinthians  of  all  that  he  has 

1 1  Cor.  i.  24,  ii.  14.  3  1  Cor.  iii.  8,  10  sq. 

2  1  Cor.  iii.  1  sq.  4  1  Cor.  iii.  22  sq.,  iv.  G  sq. 


302  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

suffered  and  endured,  that  he  may  touch  their  hearts  and 
quicken  their  waning  loyalty  and  affection  for  him ; 1  and 
even  then  he  does  not  rank  himself  above  others,  but 
classes  himself  with  them,2  not  wishing  to  do  anything  to 
promote  comparisons,  and  thus  turn  his  readers'  thoughts 
from  Christ  to  his  ministers. 

Having  finished  what  he  had  to  say  about  the  divisions 
in  the  church,  Paul  turned  to  other  matters  that  were 
troubling  him.  His  reference  to  himself  and  to  all  that 
he  had  endured  and  suffered  was  not  primarily  for  the 
purpose  of  shaming  the  Corinthians,  but  that  they  might 
be  reminded  of  his  right  to  deal  with  them  as  a  father 
with  his  children,  and  might  thus  accept  the  admonitions 
which  he  felt  called  upon  to  utter  on  account  of  the  sad 
disorders  which  existed  among  them.  As  he  begat  them  in 
Christ,  they  should  not  judge  him,  as  some  of  them  were 
doing  in  the  pride  of  their  new-found  wisdom,  but  they 
should  imitate  him.  It  was  to  put  them  in  remembrance 
of  his  life  and  teaching,  which  they  seemed  in  danger  of 
forgetting,  or  of  disregarding  altogether,  that  he  had  sent 
Timothy  to  them.  He  would  have  gone  himself  if  he 
could ;  for  he  had  heard  that  the  report  was  abroad  among 
the  Corinthians  that  he  was  not  going  to  visit  them  again, 
either  because  of  indifference  for  their  welfare,  or  through 
fear  of  those  who  had  set  themselves  up  as  his  judges,  and 
as  a  consequence  some  of  them  were  puffed  up  and  were 
confirmed  in  their  preaching  and  practice  of  principles 
which  they  knew  were  entirely  opposed  to  his.  Because 
of  such  persons  he  feared  that  when  he  came,  he  should 
be  obliged  to  conue  with  a  rod  instead  of  in  love  and  a 
spirit  of  meekness. 

Meanwhile,  as  he  could  not  go  to  Corinth  at  once, 
he  applied  the  rod  in  his  epistle.  He  first  condemns  in 
unsparing  terms  the  flagrant  case  of  fornication,  recently 
reported  to  him,  and  then  exhorts  the  church  to  use  its 
rightful  power  and  excommunicate  the  offender,  both  for 
the  offender's  sake  and  for  its  own,  that  he  may  be  saved  and 
that  the  church  may  be  made  pure.3  His  exhortation  to  the 

1  1  Cor.  iv.  8  sq.  21  cor.  iv.  <).  *  1  Cor.  v.  5,  7. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  303 

church  to  do  its  duty  in  this  matter,  and  to  pass  judgment 
upon  the  guilty  man,  reminds  Paul  that  the  Corinthians 
are  sadly  delinquent  also  in  another  respect,  in  that  they 
allow  their  personal  disagreements  and  quarrels  to  come 
into  the  civil  courts  instead  of  settling  them  among  them- 
selves. It  is  bad  enough  for  brethren  to  have  any  differ- 
ences, but  if  they  must,  they  ought  to  see  to  it  that  judges 
be  appointed  from  among  their  own  number,  and  that  all 
such  matters  be  adjusted  by  them.1  After  a  general  con- 
demnation of  intemperance  and  lust,  not  on  the  ground 
that  they  are  a  violation  of  law,2  but  on  the  ground  that 
the  Christian  is  a  member  of  Christ,  and  that  his  body 
is  a  temple  of  the  Holy  Spirit,3  Paul  takes  up  the  ques- 
tion of  marriage,4  about  which  the  Corinthians  had  asked 
his  advice  in  their  epistle.  He  handles  this  difficult 
and  delicate  question  with  great  circumspectness.  Celi- 
bacy, he  thinks,  is  better  than  marriage,  because  a  celi- 
bate can  give  himself  more  unreservedly  to  the  service 
of  the  Lord;  but  he  is  careful  to  insist  that  marriage 
is  not  in  itself  inconsistent  with  the  Christian  faith, 
and  that  it  is  better  for  those  who  have  not  the  gift 
of  continency  to  marry.  Those  already  married  should 
remain  as  they  are,  and  should  faithfully  perform  all  the 
duties  of  the  married  life,  even  though  yoked  with  un- 
believers. It  is  not  the  external  state  or  condition  that 
makes  the  Christian,  but  his  relation  to  Christ,  and  that 
can  be  sustained  even  in  the  midst  of  the  most  unfavor- 
able circumstances.  The  general  law  governs  all  such 
cases  that  every  man  should  abide  in  that  vocation 
wherein  he  was  called,  for  union  with  Christ  frees  a  man 
from  all  human  bondage,  and  makes  him  entirely  indepen- 
dent of  circumstance  and  condition.  It  is  along  the  same 
broad  lines,  and  yet  with  a  like  regard  for  practical  diffi- 
culties and  exigencies,  that  Paul  handles  the  subject  of 
meats  offered  to  idols,5  concerning  which  the  Corinthians 
had  also  asked  his  opinion.  Idols  are  in  reality  nothing, 
and  therefore  things  are  not  defiled  by  being  sacrificed  to 

1 1  Cor.  vi.  1  sq.  2  1  Cor.  vi.  12.  8  1  Cor.  vi.  15  sq. 

4  1  Cor.  vii.  5  1  Cor.  viii.,  x.  23  sq. 


304  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

them,  and  a  Christian  is  neither  the  better  nor  the  worse 
for  eating  or  abstaining.  But  not  all  have  this  knowledge, 
and  it  seems  to  some  a  sin  to  eat  of  meat  thus  offered.  For 
the  sake  of  such  weak  brethren  it  is  the  Christian's  duty  to 
abstain  if  there  is  any  danger  that  his  example  will  lead 
them  to  do  violence  to  their  conscience.  All  things  are 
lawful  to  the  Christian,  but  not  all  things  are  expedient, 
for  not  all  things  edify ;  and  it  is  the  Christian's  duty  not 
to  seek  his  own  but  his  neighbor's  good,  and  to  sacrifice  if 
necessary  his  own  liberty  and  his  own  rights  for  his  sake. 
Paul  would  have  the  Corinthians  imitate  him  in  this 
respect,  for  it  was  this  principle  that  had  controlled  his 
life.  As  an  apostle  he  had  the  right  to  do  many  things 
which  he  had  not  chosen  to  do.  He  had  the  right,  for 
instance,  to  look  to  the  Corinthians  for  support  while  he 
was  preaching  the  Gospel  among  them.  That  he  had  not 
availed  himself  of  that  right  did  not  prove,  as  some  were 
contending,  that  he  was  not  truly  an  apostle,  and  that  he 
did  not  dare  to  claim  such  a  privilege.  On  the  contrary, 
he  had  abstained  from  exercising  that  which  was  clearly 
his  right  for  the  sake  of  the  Gospel,  that  he  might  be  free 
from  any  suspicion  of  avarice  or  self-seeking,  and  thus 
might  win  the  more  to  Christ.  The  ninth  chapter  is  thus 
at  once  an  illustration  of  the  great  principle  which  Paul 
was  enforcing  and  a  defence  of  himself  against  his  enemies, 
who,  curiously  enough,  were  using  that  which  was  an  act 
of  self-sacrifice  on  his  part  as  an  argument  against  his 
apostolic  character  and  calling. 

After  this  digression  concerning  the  principles  that  had 
governed  his  own  life,  to  which  he  was  led  by  his  assertion 
of  the  Christian's  duty  to  have  regard  always  to  the  welfare 
of  his  brother,  Paul  returned  to  the  subject  with  which  he 
was  dealing,  and  called  attention  in  the  tenth  chapter  to 
another  consideration  which  should  govern  the  conduct  of 
disciples  in  the  matter  under  discussion.  Though  an  idol  is 
in  reality  nothing,  yet  in  their  sacrificial  feasts,  of  which  the 
heathen  worshippers  were  in  the  habit  of  partaking,  they 
communed  with  devils  and  not  with  God.  And  whoever 
voluntarily  took  part  with  them  in  such  religious  meals 


THE    WORK    OF   PAUL  305 

entered  into  the  same  kind  of  communion  with  devils  that 
the  believer  entered  into  with  Christ  when  he  partook  of  the 
Lord's  Supper.  A  Christian  must  therefore  strenuously 
avoid  all  such  feasts,  and  not  tempt  God  as  the  children  of 
Israel  did  in  the  wilderness.  The  eating  of  meats  offered  to 
idols  is  thus  permitted  by  Paul  so  long  as  it  does  not  cause 
a  weaker  brother  to  stumble,  but  the  participation  in  idola- 
trous feasts  is,  under  all  circumstances,  prohibited.  The 
Christian  need  not  be  deterred  from  eating  and  drinking 
what  he  pleases  by  any  idea  that  it  has  been  defiled  by  its 
contact  with  an  idol ;  but  he  must  hold  himself  aloof  from 
every  act  of  heathen  worship.1 

In  the  next  three  chapters  2  Paul  discusses  various  mat- 
ters connected  with  tjie  religious  services  of  the  Corin- 
thians, some  of  them  suggested  by  their  epistle,  others  by 
reports  he  had  heard  of  the  condition  of  affairs  among 
them.  He  begins  by  commending  them  for  remembering 
him  in  all  things,  and  holding  fast  the  traditions  which  he 
had  delivered  -unto  them,  a  commendation  that  sounds  a 
little  strange,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  he  has  so  many 
things  to  find  fault  with.  But  the  fact  that  the  Corin- 
thians had  asked  Paul's  advice,  indicated  their  desire  to 
conform  to  his  wishes  so  far  as  they  could,  and  they  had 
doubtless  given  expression  in  their  epistle  to  that  desire, 
and  to  the  conviction  that  they  were  already  following  his 
directions  so  far  as  he  had  given  any.  Paul  takes  them  at 
their  word  and  praises  them  for  their  obedience,  and  then 
goes  on  to  point  out  their  faults.  He  declares,  first  of  all, 
that  it  is  improper  for  women  to  pray  or  prophesy  with 
their  heads  unveiled,  as  some  of  them  at  least  were  in  the 
habit  of  doing  in  Corinth.  The  practice,  which  was  so  out 
of  accord  with  the  custom  of  the  age,  was  evidently  a  result 
of  the  desire  to  put  into  practice  Paul's  principle  that  in 
Christ  all  differences  of  rank,  station,  sex,  and  age  are 
done  away.  But  Paul,  in  spite  of  his  principle,  opposed 
the  practice.3  His  opposition  in  the  present  case  was  doubt- 

1  1  Cor.  x.  14  sq.    Cf .  Pfleiderer :  Urchristenthum,  S.  95 ;  and  Heinrici :  Das 
erste  Sendschreiben  an  die  Corinthier,  in  loc. 

2  1  Cor.  xi.-xiv.  3  i  Cor.  xi.  5. 


306  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

less  due  in  part  to  traditional  prejudice,  in  part  to  fear  that 
so  radical  a  departure  from  the  common  custom  might 
bring  disrepute  upon  the  church,  and  even  promote  dis- 
order and  licentiousness.  But  he  found  a  basis  for  his 
opposition  in  the  fact  that  by  creation  the  woman  was 
made  subject  to  the  man.  Paul's  use  of  such  an  argument 
from  the  natural  order  of  things,  when  it  was  a  funda- 
mental principle  with  him  that  in  the  spiritual  realm  the 
natural  is  displaced  and  destroyed,  must  have  sounded 
strange  to  the  Corinthians ;  and  Paul  himself  evidently 
felt  the  weakness  of  the  argument  and  its  inconsistency 
with  his  general  principles,  for  he  closed  with  an  appeal  to 
the  custom  of  the  churches :  "  We  have  no  such  custom, 
neither  have  the  churches  of  God,"  therefore  you  have  no 
right  to  adopt  it.1  This  was  the  mos't  he  could  say.  Evi- 
dently he  was  on  uncertain  ground. 

The  next  matter  upon  which  he  touches  is  much  more 
serious,  and  elicits  a  very  severe  rebuke.  In  dealing  with 
it  he  shows  no  such  embarrassment  as  in  the  previous  case. 
The  gatherings  of  the  Christians,  which  should  make  always 
for  the  edification  of  all,  were  doing  more  harm  than  good. 
There  were  divisions  among  them,  so  Paul  had  heard,  and 
those  divisions  were  affecting  even  the  Lord's  Supper,  so 
that  it  was  no  longer  in  any  true  sense  a  communion  meal  of 
brother  with  brother,  but  each  was  looking  out  for  himself 
alone.  Each  was  concerned  only  to  satisfy  his  own  appetite. 
The  early  comers  left  nothing  for  those  that  came  later,  and 
while  some  ate  and  drank  to  excess,  others  were  obliged 
to  go  hungry.  The  Supper  was  thus  a  scene  not  merely  of 
discord,  but  of  debauchery,  and  its  character,  both  as  a  com- 
munion-feast and  as  a  holy  meal,  was  entirely  destroyed. 
In  condemning  their  conduct,  Paul  reminds  them  in  solemn 
words  of  the  meaning  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  bread  is 
the  Lord's  body,  and  the  cup  is  the  new  covenant  in  his 
blood.  As  often  as  they  eat  of  the  bread,  and  drink  of  the 
cup,  they  show  the  Lord's  death  till  he  come.  Whoever, 
therefore,  in  partaking  of  the  Lord's  Supper  fails  to  recog- 
nize its  holy  character,  and  to  distinguish  the  body  and 

1 1  Cor.  xi.  16. 


THE   WORK   OF  PAUL  307 

blood  of  the  Lord  from  the  ordinary  bread  and  wine,  eaten 
and  drunk  at  any  common,  secular  meal,  commits  a  sin 
worthy  of  severe  punishment,  for  he  dishonors  the  Lord', 
and  it  is  because  the  Corinthians  have  been  committing 
this  sin  that  there  is  so  much  sickness  and  death  among 
them.  Their  sin  is  already  visited  with  judgment,  accord- 
ing to  Paul.1 

Turning  next  to  the  subject  of  spiritual  gifts,  concern- 
ing which  the  Corinthians  had  made  inquiry  in  their 
epistle,  Paul  calls  their  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  in- 
dwelling of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  one  great  thing  which 
distinguishes  Christians  from  all  other  men.  All  believers 
possess  the  Spirit,  for  it  is  the  Spirit  alone  that  enables 
them  to  recognize  and  confess  Jesus  as  Lord.  But  though 
it  is  one  Spirit  that  dwells  in  all  disciples,  he  manifests 
himself  in  different  measure  and  in  different  ways.  Not 
all  possess  the  same  spiritual  gifts.  Some  are  gifted  for 
one  kind  of  service,  others  for  another;  but  as  it  is  the 
one  Spirit  that  has  endowed  every  Christian,  none  should 
look  with  contempt  upon  another's  gift,  or  boast  of  the 
superiority  of  his  own.  As  a  body  has  many  members, 
and  all  the  members  have  their  uses  and  contribute  each 
in  its  way  to  the  well-being  of  the  whole,  so  the  body  of 
Christ  has  many  members,  each  of  which  is  necessary. 
Paul's  remonstrance  against  the  tendency  on  the  part  of 
some  of  the  Corinthians  to  pride  themselves  upon  their 
own  gifts,  and  to  despise  their  brethren  who  are  gifted  in 
lesser  measure  or  in  other  ways,  leads  him  to  emphasize 
the  importance  of  love.2  Far  superior  to  the  gift  of 
tongues,  of  prophecy,  of  knowledge,  of  miracle  working, 
is  the  spirit  of  love  which  leads  the  believer  not  to  vaunt 
himself  above  others,  and  not  to  envy  or  be  angry  with 
them  because  of  their  endowments,  but  to  think  always 
and  only  of  their  good  and  to  give  himself  unreservedly 
to  their  service.  If  this  spirit  of  love  prevails,  all  the 
questions  touching  the  relative  value  of  the  charisma  of 

1  Upon  Paul's  conception  of  the  Lord's  Supper  and  the  effect  upon  the  Supper 
of  the  directions  laid  down  by  him  in  this  chapter,  see  below,  p.  537  sq. 

2  1  Cor.  xiii. 


308  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

this  or  that  disciple,  and  all  the  rivalries  and  contentions 
to  which  the  possession  of  spiritual  gifts  has  given  rise, 
will  disappear,  and  the  gifts  will  prove  a  blessing  to  the 
whole  church  instead  of  proving,  as  in  too  many  cases,  a 
curse.  After  emphasizing  this  fundamental  principle,  Paul 
goes  on  to  lay  down  a  general  rule  by  which  their  value 
is  to  be  tested ;  not  that  one  brother  may  compare  himself 
with  another  and  vaunt  himself  above  him,  but  that  all 
may  seek  the  best  gifts  and  may  not  estimate  too  highly 
those  which  are  in  reality  of  least  worth.  All  of  them, 
Paul  says,  are  given  not  for  the  benefit  of  the  recipient,  but 
for  the  good  of  others ;  arid  the  value  of  a  gift,  therefore, 
is  to  be  measured  by  the  degree  to  which  it  contributes  to 
the  edification  of  the  brethren.  Thus  the  gift  of  tongues, 
though  one  of  the  showiest  of  all,  is  of  far  less  worth  than 
the  gift  of  prophecy,  because  it  commonly  does  no  one 
any  good  except  the  person  exercising  it.  This  rule  Paul 
applies  to  the  religious  services  of  the  Corinthians.  They 
are  to  be  occasions  not  for  displaying  gifts,  but  for  using 
them  to  benefit  others,  and  only  such  are  to  be  exer- 
cised as  contribute  to  that  end.  If  there  is  no  interpreter 
present,  there  is  to  be  no  speaking  with  tongues.  The 
prophets  are  to  utter  their  revelations  not  all  at  once,  but 
in  turn,  so  that  they  may  be  heard  and  understood,  and 
each  one  is  to  give  way  willingly  to  another  who  may  be 
prompted  to  speak,  that  the  church  may  have  the  benefit 
of  all  the  instruction  the  Spirit  has  to  impart. 

It  was  the  same  consideration  for  the  good  of  the  church 
as  a  whole  that  led  Paul  in  vs.  34  sq.  to  direct  that  the 
women  keep  silence  in  the  churches.  Not  that  they  had  not 
the  right  to  speak,  to  pray,  and  to  prophesy,  as  they  were  in 
the  habit  of  doing  according  to  xi.  2  sq. ;  but  that  such  pub- 
lic participation  in  the  services  would  do  more  harm  than 
good,  because  it  was  commonly  regarded  as  a  scandal  for 
a  woman  thus  to  put  herself  forward  in  public,  and  the 
benefit  her  words  might  convey  would  be  more  than  coun- 
terbalanced by  the  evil  effect  of  such  violation  of  the 
common  rule  of  decency.  The  passage  does  not  contra- 
dict xi.  2  sq.,  for  there  Paul  was  concerned  with  Another 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  309 

matter.  A  woman  must  be  always  veiled,  even  when 
praying  and  prophesying,  even  when  exercising  her  reli- 
gious right  as  a  child  of  God.  The  exercise  even  of  such 
a  right  must  not  lead  her  to  do  violence  to  the  traditional 
law  of  propriety.  But  in  the  present  case  Paul  is  dealing 
with  the  matter  of  edification,  and  as  he  believes  that  it 
will  do  more  harm  than  good  for  a  Christian  woman  to 
speak  in  public,  he  can  insist  with  perfect  consistency  that 
she  ought  not  to  do  it  at  all. 

From  the  religious  services  of  the  Corinthians,  Paul 
turns  to  the  subject  of  the  resurrection.1  He  has  learned 
that  some  of  the  Corinthians  are  denying  the  resurrection 
not  only  of  believers,  but  even  of  Christ,  and  he  there- 
fore devotes  a  long  passage  to  the  matter.  He  first  points 
out  the  firm  historic  basis  upon  which  the  belief  in  Christ's 
resurrection  is  founded,  as  he  had  declared  it  to  them 
while  still  among  them.  He  then  reminds  them  that  their 
redemption  rests  upon  the  resurrection  of  Christ.  If  he 
has  not  been  raised,  they  have  not  been  redeemed,  they 
are  still  in  their  sins,  and  their  faith  is  vain.  The  fact  of 
Christ's  resurrection  is  therefore  absolutely  fundamental. 
There  is  no  Christianity,  no  salvation,  without  it.  A  dis- 
cussion of  the  method  of  the  resurrection  follows.  Evi- 
dently, doubt  as  to  its  reality  was  due  to  difficulties  as  to 
its  method;  and  Paul  therefore  points  out  that  he  does 
not  mean,  as  some  evidently  supposed,  that  the  body  of 
flesh  will  rise  again.  It  is  not  flesh  that  is  to  rise,  but  a 
new  spiritual  body  fitted  for  the  indwelling  Spirit.  Res- 
urrection means  not  the  rehabilitation  of  the  flesh,  but 
permanent  release  from  it.  The  Christian  is  to  look  for- 
ward not  to  a  new  life  in  the  old  body,  but  to  a  new  life 
in  a  new  body.  Thus  Paul  clears  away  all  the  difficulties 
that  were  felt  to  beset  the  idea  of  a  revivification  of  the 
flesh,  whose  destruction  he  had  himself  so  earnestly  em- 
phasized. 

After  answering  the  question  of  the  Corinthians  touching 
the  collection  for  the  saints,2  and  promising  when  he  came  to 
make  arrangements  for  sending  it  to  Jerusalem,  and  after 

1 1  Cor.  xv.  2  1  Cor.  xvi.  1  sq. 


310  THE   APOSTOLIC  AGE 

explaining  Apollos'  failure  to  visit  Corinth  in  response  to 
their  request,  Paul  exhorted  them  to  treat  the  house  of 
Stephanas  with  becoming  honor  and  to  be  subject  to  them 
in  the  Lord,1  and  then  closed  in  the  usual  way,  with  greet- 
ings and  a  prayer  for  their  welfare. 

In  this 'epistle,  which  Paul  sent  by  the  hand  of  cer- 
tain unnamed  brethren,2  he  announced  his  intention 
of  visiting  Corinth  at  an  early  day.3  He  was  too  much 
engaged  with  the  work  in  Ephesus  to  go  at  once,  but 
after  Pentecost  he  intended  to  leave  for  Macedonia,  and 
to  go  on  thence  to  Corinth,  and  perhaps  spend  the  winter 
with  the  Corinthians.  Whither  he  would  go  afterwards, 
he  did  not  know ;  possibly  to  Jerusalem  with  the  deputa- 
tion appointed  to  carry  the  collection  thither,  possibly  in 
some  other  direction.4  The  divisions  and  disorders  in  the 
Corinthian  church  were  such  that  he  was  not  sure  that 
his  promised  visit  would  be  an  altogether  pleasant  one. 
Timothy's  mission  and  the  epistle  that  followed  might  not 
accomplish  all  that  he  hoped,  and  it  might  be  necessary 
for  him  to  come  with  a  rod  and  put  down  the  troubles 
with  a  strong  hand.5  Paul's  fear  of  this  seems  actually 
to  have  been  realized.  From  various  passages  in  Second 
Corinthians  we  learn  that  he  had  been  in  Corinth  twice 
before  he  wrote  that  letter;6  and  as  there  is  no  hint  in 
First  Corinthians  that  he  had  been  there  more  than  once, 
there  can  be  little  doubt  that  his  second  visit  took  place 
during  the  interval  that  elapsed  between  the  writing  of 
the  two  epistles.  The  visit  was  evidently  made  before 
his  work  in  Ephesus  was  finished ;  and  after  leaving  Cor- 
inth he  returned  to  Ephesus,  for  when  he  wrote  our 
Second  Corinthians  he  had  just  come  from  Ephesus  into 

1  Possibly  the  party  spirit  had  given  rise  to  criticism  of   Stephanas  and 
others  like  him,  who  represented  Paul's  interests  in  the  congregation.    Exhort- 
ing them  to  be  subject  to  such  as  he,  Paul  was,  perhaps,  really  exhorting  them 
again  to  give  up  their  divisions  and  to  exhibit  their  friendliness  towards  him- 
self, whose  convert  and  trusted  friend  Stephanas  was.    He  and  those  with 
him  had  shown  their  devotion  to  Paul  at  this  trying  time,  and  this  made  up 
in  part  for  the  waning  loyalty  of  some  of  the  Corinthians. 

2  1  Cor.  xvi.  11, 12.    Titus  was  very  likely  one  qf  these  brethren,  and  perhaps 
the  brother  mentioned  in  2  Cor.  viii.  22,  xii.  18  was  another.     See  below,  p.  324. 

*  1  Cor.  iv.  19,  xi.  34,  xvi.  3.  e  i  Cor.  iv.  21. 

*  1  Cor.  xvi.  3  sq.  «  2  Cor.  ii.  1,  xii.  14,  xiii.  1. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  311 

Macedonia.1  He  had  therefore  not  carried  out  the  plan 
sketched  in  First  Corinthians.  At  the  time  that  epistle 
was  written,  he  had  intended  to  remain  in  Ephesus  until 
he  had  completed  his  labors  there ;  and  then  after  a  trip 
through  Macedonia  he  had  expected  to  make  a  long  stay 
in  Corinth,  and  go  on  thence  to  some  other  place.  But 
circumstances  had  apparently  arisen  which  made  an  earlier 
trip  to  Corinth  necessary.  He  had  learned,  probably  from 
Timothy  himself,  that  the  troubles  in  Corinth  had  in- 
creased rather  than  diminished,  and  that  Timothy  was 
unable  to  cope  with  them.  He  consequently  made  up 
his  mind  to  go  thither  without  delay,  feeling  that  the 
difficulties  were  too  serious  to  be  allowed  to  go  on 
unchecked.  This  visit  proved  a  sorrowful  one.2  Paul 
was  unable  to  accomplish  his  purpose,  and  returned  to 
Ephesus  in  the  greatest  distress  and  anxiety.  His  author- 
ity had  apparently  been  defied,  and  his  credit  and  influ- 
ence decidedly  lowered ;  and  he  had  even  had  to  endure 
personal  insult.3  It  was  under  these  circumstances  that 
he  wrote  another  letter  to  the  Corinthians  immediately 
upon  his  return  to  Ephesus,  defending  himself  against  the 
attacks  of  his  enemies,  and  calling  the  Corinthians  sharply 
to  account  for  their  disloyalty  to  him,  and  for  allowing 
themselves  to  be  influenced  by  his  opponents  and  de- 
tractors. This  letter  is  referred  to  in  2  Cor.  ii.  4  sq.  and 
vii.  8  sq.  Its  general  nature  is  clear  enough.  It  was  sor- 
rowful, like  the  visit.  It  was  written  out  of  much  afflic- 
tion and  anguish  of  heart,  and  with  many  tears ; 4  and 
Paul  even  regretted  afterwards  that  he  had  sent  it,5  for  he 
was  afraid  that  it  might  have  the  effect  of  alienating  the 
Corinthians  from  him. 

It  is  common  to  speak  of  this  third  epistle  of  Paul's  as 
no  longer  extant.  But  it  is  not  impossible  that  we  still 
have  it  in  whole  or  in  part  in  2  Cor.  x.-xiii.6  It  is,  to  say 

12  Cor.  ii.  12.  «  Cf.  2  Cor.  ii.  5  sq.,  vii.  12,  x.  1,  10.  5  2  Cor.  vii.  8. 

2  2  Cor.  ii.  1.  4  2  Cor.  ii.  4. 

6  In  support  of  this  opinion  see  especially  Hausrath :  Der  Vierkapitelbrief ; 
Prteiderer:  Urchristenthum,  S.  105  sq. ;  Schmiedel  in  the  Hand-Komnientar 
zum  Neuen  Testament  (II.  1,  S.  f>6  sq.)  ;  Clemen  :  Chronologic  der  paulinischen 
Briffe,  S.  226.  On  the  other  side  see  Heinrici :  Das  zweite  Sendschreiben  des 
Apostel  Paulus  an  die  Korinthier,  S.  3  sq. ;  and  Jiilicher :  Einhituny,  S.  63  sq. 


312  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

the  least,  exceedingly  difficult  to  suppose  that  those  chap- 
ters constituted  originally  a  part  of  the  epistle  with  which 
they  are  now  connected.  Their  tone  is  entirely  different 
from  that  of  the  first  nine  chapters,  and  what  is  more,  they 
seem  to  point  to  another  situation  altogether.  The  writer 
is  not  moved  in  chapters  x.-xiii.  merely  by  the  remembrance 
of  experiences  that  belong  to  the  past  and  have  been  hap- 
pily lived  down,  but  by  the  pressure  of  existing  difficulties 
the  outcome  of  which  he  does  not  yet  know.  He  is  not 
defending  himself  against  calumnies  which  the  Corinthians 
have  already  declared  their  disbelief  in,  and  against  enemies 
whom  they  have  already  repudiated.  He  is  in  the  very 
midst  of  the  conflict,  and  he  is  filled  with  anxiety  lest  his 
words  will  not  avail,  and  the  Corinthians  will  cast  him  off 
and  give  their  entire  allegiance  to  his  foes.1  And  yet  in 
vii.  9  sq.,  he  had  expressed  his  joy  that  his  epistle  had  made 
them  sorry  unto  repentance,  and  that  it  had  wrought  such 
earnest  care  in  them,  such  clearing  of  themselves,  such  in- 
dignation, such  fear,  such  longing,  such  zeal,  such  avenging. 
He  had  told  them  that  in  everything  they  had  approved 
themselves  pure  in  the  matter  which  had  caused  the  trouble 
between  them,  that  they  had  vindicated  their  loyalty  and 
affection  for  him,  that  the  spirit  of  Titus  had  been  refreshed 
by  the  conduct  of  all  of  them,  and  that  he  himself  had  been 
comforted  and  was  in  everything  of  good  courage  concern- 
ing them.  And  a  little  farther  on,2  in  exhorting  them  to 
contribute  largely  to  the  fund  for  the  saints  of  Jerusalem, 
he  had  said,  "  But  as  ye  abound  in  everything,  in  faith,  in 
utterance  and  knowledge,  and  in  all  earnestness,  and  in 
your  love  for  us,  see  that  ye  abound  in  this  grace  also." 
It  is  evident  that  Paul  and  the  Corinthians  were  again  on 
the  best  of  terms  when  he  wrote  those  passages.  Of  lack 
of  confidence  or  affection  between  them,  there  is  not  a  sign. 
But  in  chapters  x.-xiii.  all  is  still  uncertain.  Paul  hopes 
while  writing  these  chapters  that  the  Corinthians  will  listen 
to  him  and  be  convinced  by  him,  but  he  is  far  from  sure, 
and  even  fears  the  very  worst.  It  seems  exceedingly  diffi- 
cult, in  the  light  of  these  facts,  to  suppose  that  the  earlier 

1  Cf.  2  Cor.  x.  2,  6  sq.,  xi.  3,  20,  xii.  11,  13,  19,  xiii.  3,  6.        2  2  Cor.  viii.  7. 


O      rHE  X 

UNIVERSITY  1 
THE  WOKK  OF  PAUL  313 

and  the  later  chapters  were  originally  parts  of  the  same 
epistle.1 

But  if  it  be  assumed  that  we  have  in  our  2  Corin- 
thians two  separate  epistles  of  Paul,  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  one  contained  in  chapters  x.-xiii.  was  written  earlier 
than  the  other ;  for  otherwise  we  are  compelled  to  assume 
a  still  later  attack  upon  Paul  and  a  second  estrangement 
between  him  and  the  Corinthians  of  which  we  know  noth- 
ing.2 But  if  chapters  x.-xiii.  constitute  a  separate  epistle 
written  earlier  than  chapters  i.-ix.,  it  is  of  course  the  most 
natural  thing  to  identify  them  with  the  epistle  to  which 
Paul  refers  in  2  Cor.  ii.  4  and  vii.  8  sq.  The  general  tone 
of  chapters  x.-xiii.  is  exactly  what  Paul's  references  to  that 
epistle  would  lead  us  to  expect.  Those  chapters  were  evi- 
dently written  out  of  much  sorrow  and  anguish  of  heart, 
and  there  was  good  reason  to  doubt  whether  the  Corin- 
thians would  receive  them  kindly.3  They  were  calculated, 

1  Against  this  separation  of  the  two  parts  of  2  Corinthians  no  valid  objection 
can  be  urged.    2  Cor.  x.  1, 10  sq.,  which  speak  of  Paul's  strong  letters  and  weak 
presence,  are  fully  justified  by  1  Corinthians,  while  the  apparent  identity  of  the 
mission  of  Titus  in  2  Cor.  viii.  17  sq.  and  xii.  18  is  apparent  only.    The  reference 
in  chap.  viii.  is  to  a  mission  which  Titus  is  to  perform,  and  Paul  bespeaks  a  kind 
reception  for  him  in  viii.  24 ;  while  the  mission  referred  to  in  xii.  18  is  already 
past.    "  Did  Titus  take  any  advantage  of  you?  "  Paul  asks.   The  fact  that  the 
four  chapters  are  now  a  part  of  our  second  canonical  epistle  constitutes  no 
great  difficulty.    Nothing  would  be  easier  than  for  two  comparatively  brief 
epistles  to  be  joined  together  and  to  be  counted  as  one  over  against  the  larger 
epistle  which  we  know  as  1  Corinthians  ;  and  this  would  be  particularly  easy 
if  one  of  the  brief  epistles  lacked  the  formal  introduction  which  most  of  Paul's 
epistles  bore.    The  emphatic  avrbs  5£  tyw  IlauXos  with  which  chap.  x.  begins, 
suggests,  as  Pfleiderer  and  others  have  seen,  that  chaps,  x.-xiii.  may  be  simply 
Paul's  part  of  a  larger  epistle  written  jointly  by  himself  and  some  companion, 
very  likely  Timothy.    It  may  be  that  Timothy  expressed  his  mind  touching 
the  difficulties  which  he  had  not  succeeded  in  allaying,  and  that  then  Paul 
added  what  he  had  to  say,  beginning  with  the  words,  "  But  as  for  me,  Paul, 
I  entreat  you."     If  this  supposition  were  correct,  it  would  be  very  easy  to 
account  for  the  disappearance  of  the  part  of  the  letter  written  by  Timothy, 
and  for  the  attachment  to  another  epistle  of  the  part  written  by  Paul. 

2  It  is  perhaps  not  without  significance  that  in  2  Cor.  iii.  1,  Paul  speaks  of 
"  beginning  again  to  commend  "  himself  (cf.  also  v.  12),  as  if  he  had  in  mind 
some  extended  commendation  of  himself,  such  as  we  find  only  in  2  Cor.  xi.  sq. ; 
and  the  reference  to  epistles  of  commendation  suggests  that  it  is  actually  to 
that  passage,  where  he  defends  himself  against  the  attacks  of  foreign  apostles, 
that  he  is  referring.    It  is  noticeable  that  when  he  does  enter  upon  the  de- 
tailed account  of  his  labors  and  experiences  in  chap.  x.  sq.,  he  speaks  as  if  it 
were  something  new,  and  as  if  he  had  not  before  done  any  glorying.    He 
does  not  use  the  word  "again "  in  chaps,  x.  and  xi.,  as  in  chaps,  iii.  and  v. 

3  Cf.  especially  2  Cor.  xii.  19,  xiii.  3,  6. 


314  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

if  they  did  not  move  them  to  repentance,  to  make  them 
angry,  and  to  widen  the  breach  already  existing.1 

On  the  assumption,  then,  that  Paul's  Third  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians  has  been  preserved  in  2  Cor.  x.-xiii.,  we  may 
turn  to  it  for  information  touching  the  occasion  of  Paul's 
second  visit  to  Corinth,  and  the  state  of  affairs  that  existed 
there  at  that  time.  It  is  clear  that  Paul's  apostolic  dignity 
and  authority  had  been  questioned,  and  that  he  had  been 
compared  with  the  Twelve  to  his  decided  disadvantage.2  It 
had  even  been  denied  that  he  was  in  any  sense  a  minister 
of  Christ,3  and  in  support  of  that  denial  had  been  urged  on 
the  one  hand  the  weakness  of  his  bodily  presence  and  the 
ineffectiveness  of  his  speech ; 4  on  the  other  hand  the  fact 
that  he  did  not  receive  support  from  the  Corinthians  as  all 
the  genuine  ministers  of  Christ  were  entitled  to  do.5  It 
was  insinuated  that  he  intended  to  turn  to  his  own  uses 
the  money  which  the  Corinthians  had  collected  for  the 
saints  at  Jerusalem,  and  that  he  had  hitherto  refused  to 
receive  anything  from  the  Corinthians,  in  order  that  they 
might  be  impressed  with  his  exceptional  freedom  from  ava- 
rice, and  thus  trust  him  with  the  large  sum  which  they 
were  gathering.6 

Who  the  enemies  were  that  attacked  Paul  in  this 
way,  it  is  not  altogether  easy  to  determine.  It  is  clear 
that  they  were  Jews,  or  at  least  their  leaders  were,7  and 
that  some  if  not  all  of  those  leaders  came  from  abroad,8 
and  claimed  to  be  ministers  or  apostles  of  Christ.9  It  is 
natural,  of  course,  under  such  circumstances  to  think  of 

1  Cf.  2  Cor.  x.  7,  xi.  20,  xii.  20,  xiii.  2,  5, 10.    There  is  perhaps  a  reference  to 
xiii.  2  and  10  in  i.  23  and  ii.  1. 

2  Cf.  2  Cor.  xi.  5,  xii.  11.    It  is  a  mistake  to  identify  the  virep\lav  aTr(>(TTo\oi 
of  xi.  5  and  xii.  11,  with  the  \[/€v5air6<rro\oi  of  xi.  13.    Paul  would  hardly  have 
cared  to  claim  in  two  different  passages  that  he  was  "  not  inferior"  to  men 
whom  he  calls  "false  apostles"  and  "ministers  of  Satan."    The  point  at 
issue  was  whether  he  was  equal  in  dignity  and  authority  to  the  Twelve, 
and  he  asserts  with  emphasis,  in  xi.  5  and  xii.  11,  that  he  is.    The  "false 
apostles"  are  simply  the  enemies  of  Paul  who  are  attacking  him  in  Corinth 
and  denying  his  equality  with  the  Twelve. 

8  Cf .  2  Cor.  x.  7,  xiii.  3.  «  2  Cor.  xi.  7  sq.,  xii.  13 ;  cf.  1  Cor.  ix.  3  sq. 

4  Cf .  2  Cor.  x.  1,  10,  xi.  6.  «  Cf.  2  Cor.  xii.  16  sq.  '  2  Cor.  xi.  ±J. 

8  Paul  always  speaks  of  them  in  the  third  person,  in  distinction  from  the 
Corinthians  whom  he  is  addressing  (cf.  2  Cor.  x.  10  sq.,  xi.  4,  13,  22,  iii.  1). 
»  2  Cor.  xi.  13,  23. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  315 

them  as  Judaizers.  But  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  Paul  has 
not  a  single  word  to  say  in  his  epistle  in  opposition  to 
Judaizing  principles,  or  in  defence  of  the  freedom  of  the 
Gospel.  It  is  a  mistake  to  suppose,  as  most  do,  that  every 
Jewish  Christian  who  was  hostile  to  Paul  must  have  been 
a  Judaizer.  Because  Paul's  enemies  in  Galatia  were  Juda- 
izers, there  is  no  reason  to  think  that  all  his  enemies  were. 
In  fact,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  among  the  Jewish 
Christians  that  recognized  the  right  of  the  Gentiles  to 
become  disciples  of  Christ,  without  receiving  circumcision 
and  assuming  the  obligation  to  observe  the  law  of  Moses, 
there  were  many  who  disliked  and  even  hated  Paul,  not 
because  he  preached  the  Gospel  to  the  Gentiles,  but  be- 
cause he  was  himself  an  apostate  from  Judaism  who 
neglected  entirely  the  law  and  the  customs  of  the  fathers, 
and  taught  other  Jews  to  do  the  same.1  The  distinction 
between  such  Jewish  Christians  and  Judaizers,  properly 
so  called,  should  always  be  kept  in  mind.  That  there 
w^ere  Jewish  Christians  of  the  former  type  in  Corinth  at 
this  time,  and  that  they  were  attacking  the  character  and 
apostolic  mission  of  Paul,  there  can  be  no  doubt.  But 
that  they  were  doing  it  with  the  purpose  which  had  actu- 
ated the  Judaizers  in  Aritioch  and  in  Galatia,  that  they 
were  doing  it  with  the  hope  of  bringing  the  Gentile  Chris- 
tians of  Corinth  finally  under  the  yoke  of  the  law,  there 
is  not  the  slightest  evidence.  It  is  inconceivable,  if  that 
was  their  ultimate  aim,  that  Paul  should  not  have  under- 
stood it  even  though  they  had  not  yet  avowed  it,  and  that 
he  should  not  have  exposed  their  purpose  and  endeavored 
to  show  its  inconsistency  with  the  Gospel  of  Christ  as  he 
had  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.  Instead  of  doing  any- 
thing of  the  sort,  he  merely  defends  his  own  personal  and 
apostolic  character.  It  is  noticeable  that  there  is  no  hint 
in  these  chapters  of  the  existence  of  any  legalistic  ten- 
dency among  the  Corinthians  themselves,  or  of  an  effort 
on  Paul's  part  to  guard  against  the  development  of  such  a 
tendency  in  the  future.  It  is  not  legalism,  but  its  oppo- 
site, that  gives  him  concern.  He  fears  not  that  the  Corin- 

1  Cf.  Acts  xxi.  21-24 ;  and  see  below,  p.  340  sq. 


316  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

thians  will  lose  sight  of  the  Gospel  of  liberty  in  their 
desire  to  win  righteousness  through  the  works  of  the  law, 
but  that  they  will  fall  again  into  their  besetting  sins  of 
quarrelsomeness  and  licentiousness.1  It  would  seem,  then, 
that  Paul  was  contending  in  his  third  epistle,  not  with 
Judaizers,  but  with  Jewish  Christians,  who,  because  of 
their  personal  enmity  for  him,  were  endeavoring  to  destroy 
his  credit  and  undermine  his  influence.  They  may  have 
had  an  ulterior  purpose  in  doing  so,  but  that  purpose  was 
certainly  not,  as  in  Galatia,  to  subject  the  Gentiles  to  the 
law  of  Moses,  but  rather  to  prevent  Jewish  Christians 
from  becoming  apostates  and  to  maintain  within  the  Chris- 
tian church  the  peculiar  dignity  and  prerogatives  of  the 
Jews.  This  was  a  matter  of  comparatively  little  moment 
to  Paul,  but  it  was  of  great  concern  to  him  that  his  in- 
fluence and  credit  were  threatened  with  destruction.  For 
if  once  overthrown,  there  would  remain  no  sufficient  bar- 
rier against  the  sins  whose  onslaught  his  Gospel  of  the 
divine  life  in  man  seemed  to  him  alone  adequate  to  meet 
and  repel.  It  was  not  so  much  the  substitution  of  others' 
influence  for  his  own  that  Paul  feared,  as  the  loss  of  all 
influence  which  could  avail  for  his  converts'  establishment 
in  the  Christian  faith  and  life,  and  thus  the  general  de- 
moralization of  the  Corinthian  church. 

These  Jewish  Christians  had  already  met  with  some 
success.  They  had  acquired  so  much  influence  in  Corinth, 
that  Paul  was  afraid  the  church  would  be  completely  alien- 
ated from  him.  Even  the  Corinthians  themselves  were 
asking  him  for  a  sign  that  Christ  was  really  working 
through  him,2  and  were  beginning  to  question  his  apostolic 
authority 3  and  to  be  a  little  doubtful  about  his  honesty.4 
Matters  had  reached  a  serious  pass.  There  was  already  a 
hostile  party  within  the  church,  and  it  was  apparently 
growing  steadily.  The  party  seems  to  have  owed  its  origin 
to  the  missionaries  from  abroad  whom  Paul  calls  false  apos- 
tles.5 Their  presence  in  Corinth  \yas  doubtless  reported 
to  Paul  by  Timothy,  and  it  was  because  of  them  that  he 

1  2  Cor.  xii.  20  sq.  2  2  Cor.  xiii.  3.  «  2  Cor.  xi.  '•,  •_>:;. 

4  2  Cor.  xii.  17.  6  Cf.  2  Cor.  xi.  4,  13. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  317 

made  the  hasty  trip  thither  referred  to  in  2  Cor.  ii.  1,  xiii.  2. 
But  that  visit  proved  unsuccessful  and  was  attended  with 
circumstances  of  a  very  trying  and  disagreeable  nature,  as 
already  remarked.  Not  only  had  he  been  unable  to  check 
the  growing  hostility,  but  he  had  even  been  treated  with 
contumely  apparently  by  some  particular  person,1  and  in- 
stead of  resenting  the  insult  and  taking  his  part,  the  church 
had  actually  shown  sympathy  with  his  detractor  or  at 
least  utter  indifference  in  the  matter.  Who  this  person 
was,  we  do  not  know.  It  is  at  any  rate  clear  that  whether 
originally  a  Corinthian  or  one  of  the  travelling  mission- 
aries who  had  been  causing  the  trouble,  he  was  a  member 
of  the  Corinthian  church  at  the  time  Paul  wrote  ;  for  the 
church  was  in  a  position  to  exercise  control  over  him,  and 
to  subject  him  to  discipline.  He  must  have  been  a  man  of 
prominence,  and  his  personal  standing  and  influence  must 
have  been  considerable  or  it  would  not  have  been  possible 
for  him  to  treat  Paul  in  the  way  he  did  without  suffering 
the  church's  immediate  vengeance.  It  is  a  mistake  to 
identify  him,  as  many  do,  with  the  shameless  fornicator 
mentioned  in  1  Cor.  v.  1.  The  cases  were  entirely  different, 
and  there  is  no  reason  for  connecting  them  in  any  way. 
In  1  Cor.  v.  Paul  was  dealing  with  a  gross  offender  who 
had  sinned  not  against  himself,  but  against  Christ;  in 
2  Cor.  ii.  and  vii.  with  a  personal  enemy  against  whose 
private  character  he  had  nothing  to  say. 

Upon  his  return  to  Ephesus,  Paul  wrote  his  Third  Epistle 
to  the  Corinthians,  comprised  in  2  Cor.  x.-xiii.,  hoping  to 
accomplish  by  means  of  it  what  he  had  failed  to  effect 
when  present.2  In  this  epistle  he  does  not  single  out  his 
chief  enemy  for  attack,  but  simply  refers  to  all  his  de- 
tractors in  a  body.  And  yet  there  is  a  hint  even  here  that 
he  had  one  man  especially  in  mind  when  he  says :  "  If  any 
man  trusteth  in  himself  that  he  is  Christ's,  let  him  consider 
this  again  with  himself,  that,  even  as  he  is  Christ's,  so  also 
are  we."3  He  does  not  demand  that  the  Corinthians  shall 
deal  either  with  him  or  with  any  of  the  others  in  any 
particular  way.  He  simply  defends  himself  against  them 

i  2  Cor.  ii.  5,  vii.  12.  2  Cf .  2  Cor.  x.  10.  3  2  Cor.  x.  7. 


318  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE 

and  endeavors  to  exhibit  them  in  their  true  colors,  leaving 
the  Corinthians  to  take  what  course  they  please.1  The 
letter  begins  with  a  warning  to  its  readers  not  to  act  so 
that  when  Paul  comes  again  he  will  be  obliged  to  deal 
sharply  with  them.  For  he  can  deal  sharply,  in  spite  of 
what  his  opponents  say  about  his  weakness  and  cowardice. 
His  strength  is  not  in  himself,  but  in  Christ.  He  does  not 
war  with  fleshly  but  with  spiritual  weapons,  and  with 
them  he  is  mighty  even  for  the  casting  down  of  strong- 
holds. He  does  not  care  to  compare  himself  with  others, 
and  to  boast  himself  as  they  do ;  for  not  he  that  com- 
mendeth  himself  is  approved,  but  he  whom  Christ  com- 
mendeth.  But  if  they  claim  to  be  Christ's,  let  them  know 
that  he  is  Christ's  too,  and  that  he  has  the  right  to  glory 
in  the  authority  which  Christ  has  given  him.  He  does  not 
enter  as  they  do  into  another's  labors  and  reap  another's 
fruits,  but  he  glories  only  in  his  own  labors  and  only  in 
those  who  have  been  won  by  his  own  efforts.  It  is  foolish 
to  speak  of  his  own  successes  and  grounds  for  glorying, 
and  yet,  as  his  detractors  have  had  so  much  to  say  about 
themselves  and  have  so  influenced  the  Corinthians  against 
him,  it  is  necessary  for  him  to  show  that  he  is  not  a  whit 
behind  the  very  greatest  apostles.  It  is  true  that  he  did 
not  allow  the  Corinthians  to  support  him  ;  but  was  that  a 
sin?  He  took  the  course  he  did  in  order  that  no  occasion 
might  be  given  his  enemies  to  accuse  him  of  avarice,  or  of 
making  merchandise  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ.  They  are 
false  apostles  ;  ministers  of  Satan,  not  of  Christ.  And  yet 
the  Corinthians  allow  themselves  to  be  overawed  and 
carried  away  by  them.  But  what  merits  have  they  which 

1  The  way  in  which  the  epistle  opens  seems  to  indicate  that  Paul  adds 
what  he  has  to  say  to  the  words  of  another  (see  p.  313,  above).  It  is  possible 
that  the  insult  which  Paul  had  been  compelled  to  endure  iu  Corinth  had 
touched  not  himself  alone,  but  also  his  friend  and  companion  Timothy,  whom 
he  had  perhaps  taken  with  him  to  Corinth  with  the  desire  of  re-establishing 
his  credit  and  influence  along  with  his  own.  At  any  rate,  the  use  of  the  third 
person  in  2  Cor.  vii.  12  ("  for  his  cause  that  suffered  the  wrong")  suggests 
that  it  may  have  been  not  merely  Paul  himself  that  had  been  attacked.  It 
was  possibly  because  of  this  that  Titus,  and  not  Timothy,  was  employed  by 
Paul  in  his  subsequent  negotiations  with  the  Corinthians,  and  that  Timothy's 
name  was  coupled  with  his  own  in  his  final  epistle  to  the  Corinthians  (2  Cor. 
i.  1),  which  was  written  after  the  trouble  was  finally  settled  and  peace  restored. 


THE  WORK  OF  PAUL  319 

he  has  not?  He  is  as  much  of  a  Hebrew  as  they,  and  if 
they  are  ministers  of  Christ,  he  is  even  more  so ;  for  how 
much  he  has  endured  and  suffered  for  the  Master !  "  In 
labors  more  abundantly,  in  prisons  more  abundantly,  in 
stripes  above  measure,  in  deaths  oft.  Of  the  Jews  five 
times  received  I  forty  stripes  save  one.  Thrice  was  I 
beaten  with  rods,  once  was  I  stoned,  thrice  I  suffered  ship- 
wreck, a  night  and  a  day  have  I  been  in  the  deep ;  in 
journeyings  often,  in  perils  of  rivers,  in  perils  of  robbers, 
in  perils  from  my  countrymen,  in  perils  from  the  Gentiles, 
in  perils  in  the  city,  in  perils  in  the  wilderness,  in  perils  in 
the  sea,  in  perils  among  false  brethren ;  in  labor  and 
travail,  in  watchings  often,  in  hunger  and  thirst,  in  fast- 
ings often,  in  cold  and  nakedness." l  In  all  these  things  Paul 
would  glory.  And  he  would  glory  also  in  his  revelations, 
especially  in  a  revelation  received  fourteen  years  before,  so 
wonderful  that  lest  he  should  be  exalted  overmuch,  there 
was  given  him  a  thorn  in  the  flesh  to  keep  him  humble.2 
When  he  besought  the  Lord  to  remove  it,  he  had  replied 
that  his  grace  was  sufficient  for  him  and  that  his  power 
was  made  perfect  in  weakness  ;  and  so  even  the  weakness 
itself  became  cause  for  glorying. 

After  expressing  his  regret  that  the  failure  of  the  Corin- 
thians to  take  his  part,  and  to  defend  him  against  the  attacks 
of  his  enemies,  has  made  it  necessary  for  him  to  commend 

1  2  Cor.  xi.  23-27. 

2  2  Cor.  xii.  1  sq.    The  "  thorn  in  the  flesh"  to  which  Paul  refers  here  is 
probably  to  be  connected  with  the  "  infirmity  of  the  flesh  "  which  led  him  to 
preach  the  Gospel  the  first  time  to  the  Galatians  (Gal.  iv.  13).    Ramsay  is 
very  likely  correct  in  thinking  that  that  "infirmity"  was  malarial  fever, 
and  that  Paul  was  subject  to  frequent  attacks  throughout  his  life  (St.  Paul, 
the  Traveller  and  the  Roman  Citizen,  p.  94  sq.) .    The  common  opinion  that  the 
thorn  in  the  flesh  was  a  malady  of  the  eyes,  Ramsay  has  clearly  shown  the 
improbability  of  (I.e.  p.  38  sq.) .    For  other  interpretations  see  Meyer's  Com- 
mentary, in  loc. 

The  "  fourteen  years"  referred  to  in  the  passage  in  2  Corinthians  would 
carry  the  date  of  the  revelation  back  to  about  the  year  38  or  39  (see 
below,  p.  389),  which  was  probably  three  or  four  years  before  he  visited 
Galatia  for  the  first  time.  But  Paul's  words  do  not  necessarily  imply  that 
the  "thorn  in  the  flesh  "  was  given  him  immediately  after  he  had  received 
his  revelation.  Where  and  under  what  circumstances  that  revelation  was 
received,  we  have  no  means  of  determining ;  we  only  know  that  it  was  a  most 
remarkable  one,  and  that  Paul  heard  unspeakable  words  which  it  was  not 
lawful  for  him  to  utter. 


320  ME  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

himself,  Paul  asserts  that  he  seeks  not  their  property,  but 
themselves,  and  that  he  will  gladly  spend  and  be  spent  for 
their  sakes,  as  a  father  for  his  children.  In  reply  to  the 
accusation  that  he  was  intending  to  devote  to  his  own 
uses  the  fund  collected  for  the  saints  of  Jerusalem,  he 
calls  the  Corinthians  to  witness  that  neither  his  own  con- 
duct nor  the  conduct  of  Titus  and  his  other  messengers 
has  justified  any  such  base  suspicion.  After  warning  them 
against  quarrelsomeness  and  sins  of  the  flesh  to  which 
they  were  so  prone,  he  declares  that  if  he  comes  again, 
as  he  gives  them  reason  to  expect  he  will  soon,  he  will 
not  spare  them,  but  treat  them  with  the  utmost  severity 
on  the  basis  of  the  authority  given  him  by  Christ.  He 
then  closes  in  the  customary  way  with  a  salutation  and  a 
benediction. 

This  sharp  and  passionate  epistle,  which  was  carried  to 
Corinth  by  Titus,1  produced  the  effect  for  which  it  was  in- 
tended. Paul  had  feared  for  the  result,  and  had  even 
regretted  that  he  had  written  such  a  letter,  but  his  fears 
proved  groundless.  The  Corinthians  realized  their  error 
and  took  their  stand  unequivocally  on  his  side.  He  learned 
of  their  renewed  loyalty  from  Titus,  who  returned  from 
Corinth  after  accomplishing  his  errand,  and  met  Paul  in 
Macedonia.  Paul  had  expected  to  await  Titus  in  Ephesus, 
and  to  go  thence  at  once  to  Corinth  by  the  direct  sea-route  ;2 
but  in  the  meantime  trouble  broke  out  in  Ephesus,  and  he 
was  compelled  to  leave  the  city  before  the  latter's  arrival. 
Not  wishing  to  go  to  Corinth  while  matters  were  still  in  an 
unsettled  condition,  not  wishing  to  go  thither  with  a  rod 
as  he  would  have  been  compelled  to  do,  had  he  gone  again 
while  the  situation  was  unchanged,3  he  went  instead  to 
Troas,  and  when  he  did  not  find  Titus  there,  became  im- 
patient and  hastened  on  to  Macedonia,  hoping  the  sooner 
to  get  the  desired  news  from  the  Corinthian  church.4  It 
was  in  Macedonia  that  he  met  Titus,  and  was  cheered  with 
the  most  comforting  report.6  The  Corinthians  had  vindi- 
cated their  loyalty,  and  had  even  gone  further  than  he  had 

i  2  Cor.  ii.  13,  vii.  13  sq.  2  2  Cor.  i.  15.  «  2  Cor.  i.  23. 

«  2  Cor.  ii.  12.  6  2  Cor.  ii.  13,  vii.  13  sq. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  321 

asked  them  to  in  their  zeal  for  him.  They  had  inflicted 
severe  punishment  upon  his  chief  enemy,  the  one  who  had 
openly  insulted  him,  —  apparently  excluding  him  from  the 
church  and  refusing  to  associate  with  him.1 

It  was  under  these  circumstances  that  Paul  wrote  his 
fourth  and  last  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  which  is  found 
in  chapters  i.-ix.  of  our  Second  Corinthians.  The  letter 
was  written  in  his  own  name  and  in  that  of  Timothy.2  It 
opens  with  an  expression  of  gratitude  to  God  for  the  com- 
fort with  which  he  had  comforted  Paul  in  all  his  afflictions, 
and  especially  in  the  troubles,  both  physical  and  mental, 
through  which  he  had  so  recently  passed.  Then  after 
giving  his  reasons  for  not  coming  to  Corinth  directly  from 
Ephesus,  as  he  told  the  Corinthians  he  would  when  he  sent 
Titus  with  his  previous  epistle,  and  after  defending  him- 
self against  the  charge  of  fickleness,  to  which  his  change 
of  plan  might  naturally  give  rise,3  Paul  turns  to  the  case  of 
the  person  who  had  caused  sorrow  not  to  him  alone,  but 
to  the  whole  church.  He  exhorts  the  Corinthians,  who 
had  already  visited  their  vengeance  upon  him,  to  forgive 
him.  He  had  written  them  before  not  for  the  sake  of  the 
offender,  or  of  the  offended  party,  but  in  order  that  their 
love  and  loyalty  to  himself  might  be  put  to  the  test,  and 
as  they  had  shown  clearly  by  their  action  where  they  stood, 
it  was  not  necessary  now  to  carry  the  matter  further  and 
overwhelm  the  offender  with  despair.4  His  reference  to 
the  person  who  had  caused  him  so  much  trouble  recalled 
to  Paul  the  distress  and  anxiety  in  which  he  had  been  while 
he  was  waiting  for  the  return  of  Titus  from  Corinth,  and 
the  joy  brought  him  by  the  report  of  the  latter,  and  after 
giving  expression  again  to  that  joy  in  its  contrast  with  his 
previous  sorrow,  he  points  out  that  his  claim  to  be  a  min- 
ister of  Christ  upon  which  he  had  laid  such  stress  in  his  pre- 
vious epistle  has  been  fully  vindicated  by  God.  But  this 
leads  him  to  expound  at  considerable  length  his  conception 
of  the  apostolic  mission  with  which  he  had  been  entrusted 
by  Christ,  not  in  order  to  defend  himself  against  the  at- 

1  2  Cor.  ii.  6  sq.  8  i.  15,  ii.  4. 

2  See  p.  318,  note.  4  2  Cor.  ii.  5  sq. 

T 


322  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

tacks  of  his  enemies,  but  to  confirm  the  restored  confidence 
of  his  beloved  Corinthians,  to  show  them  that  their  loyalty 
to  him  was  fully  justified,  and  to  explain  his  own  deep  con- 
cern in  the  matter.  He  is  not  one  who  uses  the  Gospel  for 
his  own  profit,  as  so  many  do.  On  the  contrary,  he  is 
always  sincere,  and  he  does  everything  in  Christ.1  His 
reference  to  his  conduct  in  this  regard  does  not  mean  that 
he  is  about  to  commend  himself  again.2  He  does  not  need 
commendation  either  to  the  Corinthians  or  from  them,  as 
some  do;  for  the  Corinthiaus  are  themselves  his  epistles 
known  and  read  of  all  men.  The  work  he  has  done  among 
them  speaks  for  itself,  and  proves  that  he  has  labored  not 
in  his  own  power,  but  in  the  power  of  God,  and  that  he  has 
been  made  by  God  a  minister  not  of  the  old  Covenant  of 
the  letter,  but  of  the  new  Covenant  of  the  Spirit,  which 
gives  life  and  is  far  more  glorious  than  the  old.3  It  is  this 
confidence  in  his  divine  call  to  be  a  minister  of  the  new 
Covenant  that  gives  Paul  his  great  boldness  and  endurance.4 
It  is  true  that  he  is  weak  enough  in  himself,  but  that  is 
only  that  the  power  of  God  may  be  the  more  clearly  mani- 
fested in  him.  Endowed  with  that  power,  he  is  strong  to 
meet  everything.5  His  afflictions  work  out  for  him  an 
eternal  weight  of  glory,  and  even  death  itself  means  only 
the  putting  off  of  an  earthly  tabernacle,  in  order  to  be 
clothed  upon  with  an  heavenly,  and  is  thus  in  reality  better 
than  life.6  And  so  Paul  is  of  good  courage  whatever  hap- 
pens. His  supreme  aim  at  all  times  and  in  all  places  is  to 
please  the  Lord,  and  he  therefore  devotes  himself  in  all 
sincerity  and  earnestness  to  the  work  of  preaching  Christ.7 
With  this  work  not  even  the  worst  afflictions  have  inter- 
fered. He  has  endured  them  all  as  a  minister  of  God  and 
as  an  ambassador  of  Christ.8  The  reference  to  the  trials 
which  he  has  been  called  upon  to  suffer  brings  him  back 
again  to  the  relations  that  exist  between  himself  and  his 
beloved  Corinthians,  and  after  urging  them  to  open  their 

1  2  Cor.  ii.  17. 

2  2  Cor.  iii.  1.    There  is  an  apparent  reference  here  to  his  former  self-com- 
mendation in  2  Cor.  xi. 

»  2  Cor.  iii.  1-11.  «  2  Cor.  iv.  7  sq.  "2  Cor.  v.  6  sq. 

«  2  Cor.  iii.  12-iv.  6.  •  2  Cor.  iv.  16-v.  5.  »  2  Cor.  v.  20-vi.  10. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  323 

hearts  still  more  widely  to  him,  as  he  has  opened  his  to 
them,  he  gives  even  fuller  expression  than  before  to  his  joy 
in  their  renewed  loyalty  and  affection.1 

Before  closing  his  epistle,  Paul  refers  to  the  collection 
for  the  saints  of  Jerusalem  and  urges  the  Corinthians  to 
give  liberally  and  cheerfully.2  He  assures  them  of  his 
satisfaction  with  the  readiness  they  have  already  displayed, 
and  expresses  his  confidence  that  they  will  more  than  fulfil 
his  expectation  and  justify  his  boasting  on  their  behalf. 
He  also  commends  Titus  and  the  other  brethren  whom  he 
sends  on  before  to  look  after  the  matter.  He  informs 
his  readers  that  the  latter  have  been  appointed  by  the 
churches  for  this  very  purpose,  that  there  may  remain  no 
ground  for  the  suspicion  that  he  intends  to  turn  the  funds 
to  his  own  use.  The  letter  ends  abruptly  without  the 
usual  salutations  and  benediction.  The  original  ending 
was  probably  displaced  when  the  third  epistle  was  added, 
and  perhaps  is  still  to  be  found  at  the  close  of  the  latter. 

This  fourth  and  final  epistle  to  the  Corinthians  was  sent, 
like  the  previous  one,  by  the  hand  of  Titus,  with  whom 
went  two  unnamed  brethren,  the  one  appointed  by  the 
churches  to  assist  Paul  in  the  matter  of  the  collection,  the 
other  a  personal  companion  of  the  apostle  who  had  been 
with  him  for  a  long  time.3  Titus  had  already  had  to  do 
with  the  collection  in  Corinth.4  But  he  can  hardly  have 
concerned  himself  with  it  at  the  time  he  carried  Paul's 
third  epistle,  for  he  was  occupied  then  with  other  business 
of  a  very  different  character.  The  Corinthians  had  begun 
to  gather  for  the  fund  a  year  before,5  at  the  time  doubtless 
when  they  received  Paul's  second  letter6  (our  First 
Corinthians),  and  it  was  probably  then  that  Titus  made 
a  beginning  of  the  work.7  He  was  very  likely  one  of  the 

1  2  Cor.  vi.  11-vii.  16.    The  passage  upon  fellowship  with  unbelievers  (vi. 
14-vii.  1)  is  entirely  out  of  connection  with  what  precedes  and  follows,  and  is 
in  all  probability  an  interpolation.    Chap.  vii.  2  continues  the  subject  of  vi.  13, 
and  seems  originally  to  have  followed  it  immediately.    It  has  been  suggested 
that  vi.  14-vii.  1,  is  a  part  of  Paul's  lost  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  in  which 
he  had  told  them  not  to  associate  with  fornicators  (cf.  Franke's  article  in 
the  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1884,  S.  544).    The  suggestion  is  a  plausible  one. 

2  Chaps,  viii.  and  ix.  4  Cf.  2  Cor.  viii.  (>.          «  1  Cor.  xvi.  1  sq. 
8  Cf.  2  Cor.  viii.  6,  18,  23,  ix.  3  sq.    5  2  Cor.  viii.  10,  ix.  2.     ~*  2  Cor.  viii.  6  sq. 


324  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

bearers  of  that  letter,  especially  entrusted  with  the  pre- 
liminary arrangements  for  the  great  collection.1  When  he 
returned  to  Corinth  therefore  with  Paul's  fourth  and  last 
epistle,  he  went  thither  for  the  third  time,  and  as  on  the 
first  occasion  a  part  of  his  business  related  to  the  fund  for 
the  Mother  Church. 


10.  PAUL'S  FINAL  VISIT  TO  CORINTH  AND  HIS  EPISTLE  TO  THE 

ROMANS 

After  despatching  his  fourth  and  last  epistle  to  Corinth, 
Paul  tarried  some  time  in  Macedonia,  apparently  visiting 
his  churches  throughout  the  province,  and  devoting  his 
attention  to  the  collection  which  he  wished  to  carry  to 
Jerusalem  at  an  early  day.2  He  intended  after  leaving 
Corinth  to  go  immediately  to  Jerusalem,  and  this  seemed 
his  only  opportunity  to  see  his  Macedonian  friends.  It  is 
therefore  not  surprising  that  he  tarried,  as  he  seems  to 
have  done,  a  number  of  months  in  the  province.3  He  ap- 
parently reached  Corinth  only  late  in  the  fall  or  early  in 
the  winter,  for  according  to  Acts  xx.  3,  he  spent  three 
months  in  Greece,  and  according  to  Acts  xx.  6  and  16,  he 
made  the  journey  thence  to  Jerusalem  in  the  spring.  Of 
the  events  of  this  Corinthian  visit  we  have  no  account  in 

1  It  is  easier  to  understand  why  Paul  should  have  chosen  Titus  as  his  repre- 
sentative in  the  serious  difficulty  between  himself  and  the  Corinthians,  if  the 
latter  had  already  been  in  Corinth  and  had  gained  their  confidence,  than  if  he 
was  a  complete  stranger  to  them.    If  Titus  carried  First  Corinthians,  he  must 
have  been  one  of  the  brethren  referred  to  in  1  Cor.  xvi.  11  and  12,  and  it  must 
be  his  mission  to  Corinth  at  that  time  that  Paul  refers  to  in  2  Cor.  xii.  17  sq. 
Probably  also  the  brother  mentioned  in  2  Cor.  viii.  22  was  one  of  the  messen- 
gers that  carried  First  Corinthians,  and  it  is  to  him,  therefore,  that  Paul 
refers  along  with  Titus  in  2  Cor.  xii.  18.    At  any  rate,  Paul  says  in  viii.  22, 
that  he  had  many  times  proved  the  brother  there  mentioned  earnest  in  many 
things,  and  implies  that  the  latter  was  already  acquainted  with  the  Corin- 
thians.   Who  this  brother  was  we  have  no  means  of  determining ;  nor  the 
brother  mentioned  in  viii.  18. 

2  2  Cor.  viii.  1  sq.,  ix.  2  sq.    For  fuller  particulars  as  to  the  possible  move- 
ments of  Paul,  of  Timothy,  and  of  Titus  at  this  time,  see  below,  p.  409  sq., 
where  the  information  supplied  by  the  pastoral  epistles  is  discussed. 

3  He  wrote  his  second  epistle  (our  First  Corinthians)  apparently  not  many 
months  before  Pentecost  (cf.  1  Cor.  xvi.  9  with  iv.  9),  and  his  fourth  epistle 
(2  Cor.  i.-ix.)  something  over  a  year  later  (cf.  2  Cor.  viii.  10  and  ix.  2  with 
1  Cor.  xvi.  1).    The  latter  was  therefore  probably  written  in  the  spring  or 
early  summer,  six  or  eight  months  before  his  arrival  in  Corinth. 


THE  WORK  OF  PAUL  325 

our  sources.1  The  Book  of  Acts  dismisses  it  with  a  single 
sentence,  recording  only  that  a  plot  was  laid  against  him 
by  the  Jews,  and  that  he  consequently  gave  up  his  inten- 
tion of  sailing  direct  to  Syria  and  returned  to  Asia  by 
way  of  Macedonia.  That  the  friendly  relations  which 
existed  when  he  wrote  his  fourth  letter  remained  undis- 
turbed is  made  evident  by  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  which 
was  written  at  Corinth  during  his  final  stay  there  and 
contains  no  hint  that  he  was  in  the  midst  of  trials  or  diffi- 
culties at  the  time.  The  victory  he  had  won  over  his 
enemies  was  apparently  complete  and  his  credit  and  his  in- 
fluence were  not  again  imperilled.  When  Clement  of  Rome 
wrote  to  the  Corinthians  a  generation  later,  the  name  of 
Paul  was  held  in  high  esteem  by  both  writer  and  readers, 
and  he  was  permanently  honored  as  the  apostolic  founder 
of  the  church.2 

It  was  during  Paul's  final  stay  in  Corinth,  as  already 
remarked,  that  he  wrote  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 
That  epistle  is  peculiar  in  that  it  was  addressed  to  a 
church  which  he  had  not  himself  founded  nor  even  seen. 
He  had  for  a  long  time  wished  to  visit  Rome.3  From 
an  early  day  in  his  missionary  career,  he  seems  to  have 
had  distinctly  in  mind  the  evangelization  of  the  Roman 
Empire,  and  his  plan  included  the  preaching  of  the  Gos- 
pel in  Rome,  its  capital.  But  in  the  meantime,  while 
he  was  engaged  in  missionary  work  in  the  East,  Christi- 
anity was  carried  to  Rome  and  a  church  was  founded 
there.  But  this  made  a  difficulty  for  him,  for  it  was  one 
of  his  principles  not  to  build  on  another  man's  foundation.4 
Rome  was  therefore  closed  to  him  as  a  field  of  missionary 
labor ;  and  yet  the  Roman  church  was  a  Gentile  church,5 
and  in  the  fulfilment  of  his  calling  as  an  apostle  to  the 
Gentiles,  he  felt  it  to  be  his  right  and  his  duty  to  impart 
to  it  such  spiritual  gifts  as  he  could.6  He  consequently 

1  It  is  possible  that  Paul  visited  Crete  at  this  time.    See  below,  p.  411. 

2  Cf.  Clement:  Ad  Cor.  c.  47.    Dionysius  of  Corinth,  writing  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  second  century,  makes  Paul  and  Peter  the  joint  founders  of  the 
Corinthian  church.    See  Eusebius:  H.  E.  II.  25,  8. 

3  Rom.  i.  10,  13,  xv.  22.  6  Rom.  i.  6,  13,  xi.  1,  13,  xv.  16. 
*  Rom.  xv.  20 ;  cf.  2  Cor.  x.  15, 16.           6  Rom.  i.  5,  11, 13, 14,  xv.  16, 


326  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

found  himself  in  a  somewhat  perplexing  position.  The 
result  was  that  he  finally  determined  not  to  give  up  his 
long-cherished  plan  of  visiting  Rome,  but  to  look  beyond 
for  a  field  of  farther  labor  and  to  make  the  capital  of  the 
empire  simply  a  temporary  halting-place  on  his  westward 
journey.  His  work  in  the  East  being  completed,  and  no 
place  remaining  for  him  there,  he  would  make  his  way  to 
Spain,  whither  Christianity  had  not  yet  penetrated,  with 
the  intention  doubtless  of  carrying  the  Gospel  thence 
throughout  the  Western  world.1  It  was  with  this  plan 
fully  formulated  that  he  wrote  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 
His  purpose  in  writing  was  apparently  a  double  one.  He 
wished  to  excuse  himself  to  the  Christians  of  Rome  for 
not  having  visited  them  before,  and  at  the  same  time  to 
announce  his  intended  coming  and  to  prepare  them  for  it.2 
Evidently  they  had  for  some  time  had  reason  to  expect 
that  they  would  see  him,  and  his  delay  was  causing  sur- 
prise and  even  unfavorable  comment.  But  in  speaking  of 
his  projected  visit  he  was  careful  to  inform  them  that  he 
was  not  coming  as  a  missionary  to  the  unevangelized,  but 
as  a  brother  with  the  expectation  of  receiving  from  them  as 
well  as  imparting  to  them  spiritual  gifts.3  He  was  care- 
ful also  to  preserve  his  genuine  apostolic  character  and  to 
guard  himself  against  the  accusation  of  building  upon 
another's  foundation  by  assuring  them  that  his  objective 
point  was  far  beyond  and  that  he  desired  not  to  labor  in 
Rome,  but  only  to  be  set  forward  on  his  journey.  But 
even  then  he  felt  it  necessary  to  justify  his  proposed  visit, 
doubtless  in  view  of  what  he  knew  his  enemies  would  say 
about  it,  by  appealing  to  the  fact  that  his  readers  were 
Gentiles,  and  were  therefore  his  especial  province  because 
he  had  been  called  of  God  to  be  an  apostle  to  the  heathen 
and  to  minister  unto  their  needs.4  He  was  evidently  desir- 
ous of  doing  everything  he  could  to  conciliate  his  readers 
and  to  promote  good  feeling  between  himself  and  them. 

It  was  natural  that  an  epistle  intended  to  explain  his 
past  failure  to  visit  Rome  and  to  announce  his  expecta- 

1  Rom.  xv.  23  sq.  «Rom.i.  12. 

2  Rom.  i.  10  sq.,  xv.  23  sq.  *  Rom.  i.  5,  13,  xv.  16. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  327 

tion  of  going  thither  in  the  near  future  should  have  been 
written  just  at  this  juncture,  when  Paul  was  on  the  point 
of  turning  eastward  again,  and  when  it  might  well  be  sup- 
posed by  the  Roman  Christians  that  he  had  abandoned 
altogether  his  intention  of  seeing  them.  The  reason  for 
the  epistle  is  thus  clear  enough ;  but  the  epistle  itself  is 
not  so  easy  to  understand.  The  subject  of  his  visit  fills 
altogether  only  a  few  verses  at  its  beginning  and  its  close, 
while  the  remainder  is  almost  wholly  doctrinal  and  ethical, 
and  bears  no  obvious  relation  to  the  occasion  which  led 
him  to  write.  And  yet  there  was  a  reason  in  the  situation 
in  which  Paul  found  himself  placed  for  the  composition 
of  just  such  a  letter.  If  his  intended  visit  was  to  have  the 
effect  which  he  hoped,  if  it  was  to  prove  helpful  both  to 
himself  and  to  the  Christians  of  Rome,  and  contribute  to 
the  success  of  his  projected  missionary  work  in  Spain,  it 
was  necessary  that  all  hindrances  to  a  friendly  and  fra- 
ternal intercourse  between  himself  and  them  should  be 
removed,  and  that  any  misunderstanding  they  might  have 
as  to  the  nature  of  his  Gospel,  and  any  suspicions  they 
might  entertain  as  to  its  soundness,  should  be  cleared 
away.  It  was  therefore  important  not  that  he  should 
give  them  a  complete  statement  of  his  beliefs  and  of  his 
conception  of  his  apostolic  mission,  but  that  he  should 
address  himself  to  such  suspicions  and  misunderstandings 
as  were  actually  abroad  in  the  Roman  church.  A  care- 
ful examination  of  his  epistle  shows  that  this  is  exactly 
what  he  did.  It  is  customary  in  many  quarters  to  call  it 
a  presentation  of  Paul's  system  of  theology,  or  a  didactic 
statement  of  his  Gospel,  but  it  is  a  great  mistake  to  think 
of  it  thus.  It  is  a  letter  written  to  remove  or  to  guard 
against  certain  definite  misapprehensions  and  to  oppose 
certain  definite  evils,  and  it  contains  only  so  much  of  the 
theology  and  ethics  of  Paul  as  was  adapted  to  that  pur- 
pose. And  yet  it  constitutes  the  most  elaborate  exposi- 
tion that  we  have  of  his  Gospel,  and  that  fact  shows  that 
the  misapprehensions  which  had  to  be  corrected  affected 
the  very  essence  of  his  Christianity.  The  epistle  contains 
an  extended  discussion  of  the  relation  of  law  and  Gospel, 


328  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

and  of  God's  dealings  with  the  people  of  Israel,  and  it  is 
thus  evident  that  a  part  at  least  of  the  objections  and  dif 
faculties  which  Paul  had  to  meet  had  their  origin  in  or  were 
connected  with  Judaism.  At  the  same  time  the  practical 
exhortations  in  chapters  xii.— xv.  are  not  such  as  would  be 
addressed  to  Christians  who  were  inclined  to  observe  the 
Jewish  law,  and  to  regard  such  observance  as  a  means  of 
salvation.  The  unhealthful  tendencies  which  the  epistle 
combats  in  those  chapters  are  for  the  most  part  genuinely 
heathen  and  show  no  trace  of  the  influence  of  Judaistic 
principles.  It  is  noticeable  also  that  there  is  less  of  storm 
and  passion  and  less  of  the  personal  element  than  in 
almost  any  other  of  Paul's  letters,  and  this  shows  that 
he  had  not  been  attacked  in  Rome  by  any  such  hostile 
Judaizers  as  undermined  his  work  in  Galatia,  or  by  any 
such  bitter  enemies  as  beset  him  in  Corinth. 

What,  then,  are  we  to  conclude  as  to  the  condition 
of  things  in  Rome  which  made  it  necessary  for  Paul 
to  write  as  he  did?  The  only  reasonable  assumption 
in  the  light  of  the  first  eleven  and  of  the  last  four 
chapters  of  the  epistle  seems  to  be  that  the  church  of 
Rome,  while  its  Gentile  members  were  largely  in  the 
majority,  yet  contained  a  not  inconsiderable  minority  of 
Jewish  Christians,  and  that  Paul  found  it  necessary  to 
address  himself  to  both  classes :  on  the  one  hand  to  con- 
vince the  Jewish  Christians,  if  possible,  of  the  truth  of 
his  Gospel  and  thus  remove  the  natural  opposition  which 
they  felt  to  him  as  the  apostle  to  the  heathen,  and  on  the 
other  hand  to  combat  the  antinomian  tendencies  which 
were  appearing  among  the  Gentile  Christians,  many  of 
whom  were  turning  their  liberty  into  license  and  were  ap- 
pealing to  his  Gospel  in  support  of  their  conduct.  But 
in  expounding  his  principle  of  freedom  from  the  law  for 
the  sake  of  those  who  believed  in  its  continued  authority, 
Paul  had  in  mind  the  Gentile  majority  as  well  as  the  Jew- 
ish minority,  and  was  concerned  not  simply  to  convince 
the  latter,  but  also  to  give  to  the  former  the  means  of 
defending  successfully  their  free  Christianity  against  the 
criticisms  of  their  Jewish  brethren. 


THE  WORK  OF  PAUL  329 

It  is  clear  from  the  entire  tone  of  his  epistle  that 
the  Jewish  Christians  whom  Paul  addressed  were  not 
personally  hostile  to  him  and  were  not  bitter  in  their 
opposition  to  his  teachings.  It  was  not  censure  and 
attack  they  needed,  but  instruction  and  enlightenment; 
and  there  was  reason  to  hope  that  they  might  be  influ- 
enced by  what  he  had  to  say.  The  Gentile  majority 
were  already  favorably  disposed  toward  him.  They 
recognized  his  apostolic  calling  and  were  quite  ready  to 
listen  to  his  admonitions.  In  order,  therefore,  to  con- 
vince the  Jewish  minority  of  the  truth  of  his  Gospel,  to 
fortify  and  confirm  the  Gentile  majority  in  their  free 
Christianity,  and  to  combat  the  evil  tendencies  to  which 
a  misunderstanding  of  the  profound  ethical  significance 
of  that  Christianity  was  giving  rise,  Paul  expounds  his 
Gospel  on  the  one  hand  over  against  legalism,  and  on  the 
other  hand  over  against  libertinism.  But  it  is  worthy  of 
.notice  that  it  is  not  two  Gospels  nor  even  two  different 
sides  of  one  Gospel  which  he  presents,  but  the  very  heart 
and  essence  of  that  Gospel,  which  equally  precludes  both 
legalism  and  libertinism. 

The  epistle,  which  was  thus  written  with  a  definite 
practical  aim,  opens  with  words  of  salutation  and  of  com- 
mendation, followed  by  the  expression  of  Paul's  earnest 
and  long-cherished  desire  to  visit  those  addressed.1  This 
desire  has  hitherto  proved  impossible  of  realization,  but  he 
hopes  soon  to  carry  it  out,  that  he  may  have  fruit  in  them 
even  as  in  the  rest  of  the  Gentiles.2  The  Gospel  which 
he  has  preached  elsewhere,  and  is  ready  to  preach  in  Rome 
also,  is  not  a  Gospel  of  which  he  is  ashamed ;  "  for  it  is  a 
power  of  God  unto  salvation  to  every  one  that  believeth  " ; 
"for  in  it  is  revealed  a  righteousness  of  God  from  faith 
unto  faith."3  These  words  contain  the  theme  of  the  entire 
epistle,  which  is  all  of  a  piece,  though  it  falls  naturally 
into  three  general  divisions.  The  first  of  those  divisions 
contains  a  thoroughgoing  exposition  of  the  Gospel  thus 
briefly  characterized,  the  Gospel  of  the  divine  life  in 
man ; 4  the  second,  a  discussion  of  God's  dealings  with 

1  Rom.  i.  1-12.        2  Rom.  i.  13-15.        3  Rom.  i.  16,  17.         4  Rom.  i.-viii. 


330  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

and  his  purposes  for  the  children  of  Israel,  whose  preroga- 
tives as  a  covenant  people  seem  entirely  destroyed  by  that 
Gospel  as  preached  by  Paul ; l  the  third,  the  practical 
application  of  the  Gospel  of  the  divine  life  in  man  to  the 
every-day  life  of  the  Roman  Christians.2 

Paul  begins  the  exposition  of  his  Gospel  with  a  demon- 
stration of  the  fact  that  every  one  needs  salvation ;  that 
no  one  is  righteous  or  can  be  righteous  of  himself,  and 
that  therefore  no  one  can  escape  the  just  judgment  of 
God.3  Upon  this  truth  he  dwells  at  considerable  length, 
showing  its  application  not  only  to  the  Gentiles,4  but  also 
to  the  Jews,6  and  thus  addressing  both  classes  within  the 
Roman  church.  Gentiles  and  Jews  are  alike  responsible 
in  the  sight  of  God ;  the  former,  because  God  has  mani- 
fested himself  from  the  beginning  in  his  created  works, 
and  because  they  have  a  law  written  in  their  own  hearts ; 
the  latter,  because  they  have  been  entrusted  with  the 
oracles  of  God  and  instructed  in  his  ordinances.  But 
though  responsible,  they  cannot  meet  their  responsibility. 
No  one  can  become  righteous  in  God's  sight  by  keeping 
a  law.  Law  serves  only  to  bring  man  to  a  knowledge  of 
his  sin.6  After  showing  the  universality  of  human  sinf ul- 
ness  and  the  absolute  non-existence  of  human  righteous- 
ness, and  thus  demonstrating  man's  need,  Paul  declares 
that  that  need  has  been  met  by  God,  who  has  revealed  in 
Jesus  Christ  a  righteousness  of  his  own,  which  is  imparted 
to  those,  and  to  those  alone,  that  have  faith  in  Jesus.7 
This  righteousness  can  be  secured,  whether  by  Jew  or 
Gentile,  only  by  faith,  and  not  by  the  observance  of  a  law. 
But  the  Jew  at  once  objects:  If  faith  and  not  the  ob- 
servance of  the  law  is  made  the  condition  of  the  attain- 
ment of  righteousness,  is  not  the  law  of  God  made  of 
none  effect?  To  this  Paul  replies  with  a  decided  nega- 
tive;8 and  then,  in  order  to  convince  the  Jew  that  the 
principle  of  righteousness  by  faith  instead  of  by  works, 
which  he  is  emphasizing,  is  not,  as  it  might  seem,  utterly 

1  Rom.  ix.-xi.  4  Rom.  i.  18-ii.  16.  7  Rom.  iii.  21-30. 

2  Rom.  xii.-xv.  13.  5  Rom.  ii.  17-iii.  20.  8  Rom.  iii.  31. 
»  Rom.  i.  18-iii.  20.              «  Rom.  iii.  20. 


THE   WORK   OF  PAUL  331 

mbversive  of  the  divine  law  and  opposed  to  all  God's 
dealings  with  his  chosen  people,  he  calls  attention  to  the 
experience  of  Abraham  and  to  the  words  of  David.1 
Abraham,  the  father  of  God's  covenant  people,  whether 
it  be  assumed  that  he  lived  righteously  or  not,  was  at  any 
rate,  as  is  proved  by  the  express  statement  of  Scripture, 
treated  as  righteous  by  God,  not  because  of  his  works  or 
of  his  righteous  living,  but  because  of  his  faith;2  and  he 
was  treated  as  righteous  by  God  while  he  was  still  un- 
circumcised,  so  that  it  cannot  be  claimed  that  circumcision 
constituted  in  any  sense  a  basis  of  God's  action  in  his  case.3 
Thus  the  experience  of  Abraham  is  typical  of  the  experi- 
ence of  every  other  man,  whether  circumcised  or  uncircum- 
cised,  whether  living  under  law  or  without  law.  And  the 
experience  of  Abraham  in  this  respect  is  confirmed  by  the 
words  of  David,  who  pronounces  a  blessing  upon  the  man 
to  whom  God  reckons  righteousness  apart  from  works.4 

After  thus  answering  the  objection  of  the  Jews  by  de- 
monstrating from  their  own  Scriptures  the  truth  of  his 
assertion  that  faith,  not  works,  is  the  real  condition  of 
justification,  Paul  returns  to  his  Gospel  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  God,  and  indicates  the  blessings  that  flow  to  the 
believer  from  the  possession  of  that  righteousness :  peace 
with  God,  joy  in  the  assurance  of  his  love,  release  from 
condemnation,  and  eternal  life.5  Over  against  this  life, 
which  is  the  chief  fruit  of  the  divine  righteousness  and 
the  believer's  supreme  blessing,  Paul -then  places  in  sharp- 
est contrast  that  death  which  is  the  fruit  of  sin.6  He 
shows  that  as  the  reign  of  death  began  with  the  sin  of 
Adam,  the  reign  of  life  began  with  the  righteousness 
of  Christ,  and  he  asserts  that  where  sin  with  its  re- 

1  Rom.  iv.  1-22. 

2  Rom.  iv.  2-4  may  be  paraphrased  as  follows:  If  Abraham  was  made  just 
from  works,  or  was  just  in  his  works,  he  hath  a  ground  of  boasting,  but  even 
then  he  hath  it  not  toward  God,  for  the  Scripture  says  that  God  reckoned  his 
faith  for  righteousness,  and  therefore  whether  he  kept  the  law  or  not  he  was 
treated  by  God  as  righteous,  not  because  he  kept  the  law,  nor  because  of  his 
works,  however  good  those  works  may  have  been,  but  because  of  his  faith. 
God  justifies  no  man  because  he  keeps  the  law.    The  only  ground  of  justifica- 
tion in  God's  sight  is  faith. 

8  Rom.  iv.  9  sq.        4  Rom.  iv.  6  sq.        5  Rom.  v.  1  sq.        6  Rom.  v.  12  sq. 


332  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

sultant  death  abounded,  the  gift  of  the  divine  righteous- 
ness with  its  resultant  life  abounded  more  exceedingly.1 
But  this  at  once  raises  the  question,  If  the  prevalence 
of  human  sin  was  the  occasion  of  the  bestowal  of  the 
divine  gift  of  righteousness,  will  not  the  gift  be  greater, 
the  greater  the  sin,  and  ought  we  not  therefore  to  con- 
tinue in  sin  that  grace  may  abound?  This  question 
is  similar  to  that  to  which  Paul  had  referred  in  passing  in 
iii.  8,  and  it  doubtless  represents  both  an  objection  to  his 
Gospel  made  by  Jewish  Christians  and  a  practical  conclusion 
drawn  from  it  by  Gentiles.  Paul  answers  the  question 
with  a  decided  negative,  and  in  order  to  show  what  a  com- 
plete misapprehension  lies  back  of  it,  he  enters  upon  a 
thoroughgoing  exposition  of  the  nature  of  the  Christian 
life  which  he  preaches.  That  life  is  simply  the  divine 
life  in  man.  The  Gospel  which  was  stated  briefly  in  i.  17 
and  in  iii.  20  sq.  contains  two  terms :  the  righteousness  of 
God  and  the  faith  of  man ;  the  former  the  gift,  the  latter 
the  condition  of  its  bestowal.  In  the  fourth  chapter  Paul 
answered  the  Jews'  objection  to  the  principle  of  faith 
as  the  condition  of  righteousness ;  in  the  following  chap- 
ters he  deals  with  the  righteousness  itself,  and  in  doing 
so  reveals  the  very  heart  of  his  Gospel  and  makes  evident 
its  profound  religious  and  ethical  significance.  The  be- 
liever who  is  buried  with  Christ  in  baptism  dies  with  him 
unto  sin  and  rises  with  him  unto  a  new  life  of  righteous- 
ness, a  life  which  can  be  nothing  else  than  righteous  be- 
cause it  is  divine.2  But  in  this  new  life  there  is  freedom 
not  only  from  sin,  but  also  from  law.3  This  does  not  mean 
license  to  sin,  for  the  believer  is  already  dead  to  sin  and 
alive  unto  righteousness.4  His  death  to  the  law  Paul 
then  illustrates  for  the  sake  of  his  Jewish  readers  by  the 
Jewish  law  touching  marriage.5  But  the  fact  that  the 
believer,  when  joined  to  Christ,  dies  unto  the  law,  does 
not  mean  that  the  law  is  sinful  and  unholy,  as  one  might 
think.  It  means  simply  that  the  law  has  fulfilled  its  pur- 
pose, which  was  not  to  make  righteous,  but  to  convince 

1  Rom.  v.  20,  21.  2  Rom.  vi.  1-14.  8  Rom.  vi.  14. 

*  Rom.  vi.  15-23.  *  Rom.  vii.  1-6. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL 

of  sin.1  This  Paul  illustrates  from  his  own  experience, 
showing  how  he  was  led  by  the  law  to  a  conviction  of  his 
sin  and  from  that  conviction  to  the  realization  of  his 
fleshly  nature,  which  was  necessarily  evil  and  which  made 
righteousness  absolutely  impossible  to  him.  He  shows 
also  how  he  was  finally  released  from  the  control  of  the 
flesh,  the  body  of  death,  by  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.2  Thus 
Christ  frees  from  the  body  of  flesh,  and  hence  from  sin  and 
condemnation  and  death,  all  those  that  are  in  him,  and  in- 
troduces them  into  the  new  life  in  the  Spirit,  a  life  which 
is  divine,  not  human,  and  which  is  consequently  holy  and 
eternal.3  And  so  he  that  is  Christ's,  being  no  longer  a 
debtor  to  the  flesh  but  being  under  the  control  of  the 
Spirit,  cannot  do  otherwise  than  mortify  the  deeds  of  the 
body.4  He  is  no  longer  a  bond-servant  over  whom  the  flesh 
holds  sway.  He  is  a  child  of  God.  But  if  a  child,  then 
an  heir,  a  joint  heir  with  Christ  in  whose  sufferings  and 
death  he  has  shared  —  a  joint  heir  of  the  glory  which 
shall  far  surpass  all  the  sufferings  of  the  present.6  There 
is  a  hope  that  into  this  divine  sonship  all  men,  having  been 
subjected  for  so  long  a  time  to  the  bondage  of  the  flesh, 
may  yet  be  brought,  and  thus  share  with  those  who  are 
already  believers  in  the  glory  that  is  one  day  to  be  re- 
vealed.6 Waiting  in  patience  for  that  final  revelation, 
they  that  are  children  of  God  know  that  all  things  work 
together  for  their  good ;  for  to  be  called  by  God  to  be  his 
sons  means  to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of  his  first-born 
Son,  and  to  be  one  with  him  in  righteousness  and  in  glory, 
for  nothing  can  separate  those  that  are  his  from  the  love 
of  God  in  Christ  Jesus.7 

Thus  Paul  makes  it  clear  that  the  righteousness  of  God, 
of  which  he  spoke  in  i.  17,  and  which  he  declared  in  iii. 
21  sq.  to  have  been  manifested  in  Jesus  Christ,  is  not  a  mere 
declaration  that  a  man  is  righteous,  as  might  be  supposed  if 
we  had  only  the  third  and  fourth  chapters,  but  that  it  is  the 
actual  righteousness  of  the  Divine  Spirit  in  man.  Thus  his 
fuller  exposition  of  his  Gospel  has  shown  that  that  Gospel 

1  Rom.  vii.  7  sq.       8  Rom.  viii.  1-11.       5  Rom.  viii.  14-18.      1  Rom.  viii.  25-39. 

2  Rom.  vii.  7-25.       4  Rom.  viii.  12  sq.     6  Rom.  viii.  19  sq. 


334  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

leaves  no  more  room  for  libertinism  than  for  legalism ;  that  if 
the  divine  life  in  man  can  be  subjected  to  no  law,  neither  can 
it  be  anything  else  than  divine  and  therefore  holy.  It  is  evi- 
dent that  Paul  is  taking  account  throughout  these  chapters 
of  both  classes  of  his  readers,  of  Gentiles  as  well  as  of  Jews, 
and  that  his  exposition  relates  itself  to  the  needs  of  both. 

From  this  presentation  of  his  Gospel  of  the  righteousness 
of  God  in  Christ,  which  closes  with  an  exultant  hymn  of 
assured  confidence,  Paul  turns  to  a  consideration  of  the 
relation  of  the  Jewish  people  to  Christianity,  and  of  God's 
dealings  with  them.1  Though  himself  a  Jew,  Paul  was 
devoting  his  life  to  missionary  work  among  the  Gentiles 
instead  of  among  his  own  countrymen,  and  he  was  accused 
consequently  not  only  of  a  lack  of  patriotism  and  of  a 
want  of  affection  for  his  brethren  after  the  flesh,  but  also 
of  running  counter  to  the  revealed  will  of  God,  who  would 
have  the  children  of  Abraham  first  brought  into  the  king- 
dom, and  only  afterwards  through  their  agency  the  nations 
of  the  world.  But  the  Jewish  Christians  were  not  merely 
dissatisfied  with  Paul's  conduct  in  the  matter,  they  were 
also  troubled  and  perplexed  by  the  practical  results  of  his 
preaching  and  of  the  preaching  of  other  missionaries  to  the 
heathen.  The  proportion  of  Gentiles  within  the  church 
was  growing  constantly  larger  and  the  Jews  were  falling 
into  an  ever  more  hopeless  minority.  How  could  this 
fact  be  reconciled  with  the  purpose  of  God  as  declared  in 
his  promise  to  Abraham  ?  In  chapters  ix.,  x.,  and  xi.,  Paul 
is  evidently  meeting  not  captious  objections,  but  honest 
difficulties ;  and  is  concerned  not  so  much  to  repel  attacks 
upon  himself  and  upon  his  Gospel,  as  to  explain  a  problem 
which  troubled  and  weighed  upon  him  as  well  as  upon  his 
readers.  He  begins  his  discussion  with  a  solemn  assevera- 
tion of  his  affection  for  his  people,  and  of  his  longing  to 
see  them  saved.  But  why  are  they  not  saved?  Has 
God  really  cast  them  off  and  has  he  broken  his  promise 
to  Abraham  ?  By  no  means ;  for  not  all  that  are  called 
Israel  are  truly  Israel  and  not  all  of  Abraham's  descend-, 
ants  are  his  children  in  the  true  sense.  God  in  the  exer- 

1  Rom.  ix.-xi. 


THE   WORK  OF   PAUL  335 

cise  of  that  absolute  sovereignty  which  is  abundantly  tes- 
tified to  in  the  Scriptures,  and  which  therefore  no  Jew 
ought  to  question,  has  chosen  some  and  rejected  others 
out  of  his  own  good  pleasure ;  for  has  not  the  potter  the 
right  to  use  the  clay  as  he  pleases,  and  to  make  vessels 
unto  honor  and  vessels  unto  dishonor  out  of  the  same  lump? 
God  has  chosen  not  all  the  descendants  of  Abraham,  but  only 
such  of  them  as  he  wished,  and  with  them  such  of  the  Gen- 
tiles as  he  wished.  They  together  constitute  the  children 
of  the  promise,  and  in  their  election  God's  covenant  with 
Abraham  has  been  fulfilled.1 

But  this  assertion  of  God's  sovereignty  in  the  matter 
does  not  satisfy  Paul.  It  may  silence  objectors,  but 
it  does  not  solve  the  problem.  He  is  convinced  that 
if  the  majority  of  the  Jews  are  not  saved,  it  is  their 
own  fault;  it  is  because  they  have  depended  upon  their 
own  works  instead  of  depending  upon  God  in  faith.2 
Thus  they  were  not  cast  off  by  God,  but  they  made  it 
impossible  for  God  to  save  them.  And  yet  this  was  not  true 
of  all  of  them.  There  were  some,  including  Paul  himself, 
who  believed  and  who  therefore  shared  in  the  election  by 
grace.3  And  even  those  Israelites  who  were  hardened 
did  not  stumble  in  order  that  they  might  be  finally  rejected, 
but  by  their  fall  they  became  a  means  of  the  preaching  of 
the  Gospel  to  the  Gentiles.  And  the  salvation  of  the 
Gentiles  thus  made  possible  by  their  fall  will  in  turn  re- 
dound to  their  good,  provoking  them  to  jealousy,  and  thus 
leading  them  to  Christ.4  It  is  for  this  reason,  Paul  tells 
his  Gentile  readers,  that  he  is  so  earnest  in  preaching  the 
Gospel  to  them,  that  through  them  he  may  save  his  own 
countrymen.5  And  so  they  are  not  to  be  puffed  up  with 
pride,  nor  to  glory  over  the  branches  that  were  broken 
off  that  they  might  be  grafted  in ;  for  it  is  not  they  that 
bear  the  root  but  the  root  them,  and  if  God  spared  not 
the  natural  branches  but  broke  them  off  because  of  their 
unbelief,  neither  will  he  spare  the  branches  that  were 
ingrafted  if  they  become  high-minded  and  continue  not  in 

1  Rom.  ix.  6-29.  2  Rom.  ix.  30-x.  21.  8  Rom.  xi.  1  sq. 

4  Rom.  xi.  11  sq.  5  Rom.  xi.  13  sq. 


336  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

faith.1  Moreover,  as  he  has  grafted  in  strange  branches, 
he  is  able  to  graft  in  again  those  branches  that  were 
cut  off,  if  they  renounce  their  unbelief;  and  this  Paul 
believes  will  in  the  end  actually  take  place.  His  optimism 
carries  him  so  far  that  he  makes  the  sweeping  assertion 
that  all  Israel  shall  be  saved.2  A  hardening  in  part  has 
befallen  them  until  the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  has  come 
in,  and  then  they,  too,  shall  be  brought  in,  for  "the  gifts 
and  the  calling  of  God  are  without  repentance."3  No 
wonder  that  Paul  breaks  out  in  a  hymn  of  praise  to  God 
whose  "judgments  are  unsearchable  and  his  ways  past 
finding  out."4  Paul  thus  meets  the  national  difficulties  of 
the  Jewish  disciples  as  he  met  in  the  earlier  chapters  their 
religious  difficulties ;  and  at  the  same  time  he  removes  all 
ground  for  jealousy  and  strife  between  the  two  classes  of 
Christians  within  the  Roman  church. 

He  then  returns  in  the  twelfth  chapter  to  his  Gospel  of 
the  righteousness  of  God  in  man,  and  applies  that  Gospel  to 
the  practical  life  of  the  individual  believer,  showing  how  it 
should  manifest  itself  in  the  varied  circumstances  in  which 
the  Christian  is  placed  and  in  the  varied  relations  which 
he  sustains  toward  others.5  In  xiv.  1-xv.  13,  he  addresses 
himself  particularly  to  a  condition  of  things  somewhat 
similar  to  that  which  had  existed  in  Corinth,  where  the 
liberty  of  some  was  offending  the  weak  consciences  of 
others.6  The  principles  which  Paul  lays  down  are  the 
same  in  both  cases.  Though  he  recognizes  the  liberty  of 
the  Christian  in  eating  and  drinking  and  in  the  observance 
of  special  days  and  times,  and  though  he  distinctly  says 
that  "  nothing  is  unclean  of  itself,"  he  nevertheless  urges 
his  readers  to  govern  their  action  in  all  such  cases  by  the 
law  of  love ;  to  have  regard  at  all  times  to  the  good  of 
others  and  to  do  nothing  that  will  cause  offence  to  a  weaker 
brother  or  lead  him  astray.  And  at  the  same  time  he 
exhorts  them  to  treat  such  a  brother  not  with  contempt, 
but  with  all  kindness  and  consideration.  It  is  evident 
that  the  weaker  brethren  referred  to  in  this  chapter  were 

1  Rom.  xi.  17  sq.  8  Rom.  xi.  29.  6  Rom.  xii.-xv. 

2  Rom.  xi.  26.  4  Rom.  xi.  33  sq.  6  Cf.  1  Cor.  viii. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  337 

not  Judaizers  nor  under  the  influence  of  Judaizers.  Had 
they  been,  Paul  could  not  have  proposed  any  such  com- 
promise with  them  or  any  such  consideration  for  their 
scruples.  They  were  not  observing  the  Jewish  law  and 
making  its  observance  necessary  to  salvation,  as  the  Juda- 
izers did,  for  the  Jewish  law  does  not  forbid  the  use  of 
flesh  and  wine.  If  they  were  Jews  at  all,  as  their  observ- 
ance of  special  days  might  seem  to  suggest,  they  owed 
their  scrupulosity  not  to  Pharisaic  legalism,  but  rather  to 
the  dualistic  tendency  which  voiced  itself  in  Alexandrian 
Judaism  and  in  Essenism.  But  it  is  more  probable  in  the 
light  of  xv.  7,  where  both  parties  seem  to  be  distinguished 
from  the  Jews,  that  they  as  well  as  the  "stronger"  breth- 
ren were  largely  Gentile  Christians,  who  felt  the  common 
ascetic  impulse  which  was  widespread  in  the  heathen  world 
of  the  period.  Abstinence  from  flesh  and  wine  and  the 
observance  of  special  fast  days  became  very  common  in 
the  church  of  the  second  and  subsequent  centuries,  quite 
independently  of  Jewish  influence.  It  will  hardly  do, 
therefore,  to  find  in  the  stronger  and  weaker  brethren  of 
chapters  xiv.  and  xv.  the  Jewish  and  Gentile  wings  of 
the  Roman  church,  of  whose  existence  we  learn  from  the 
earlier  chapters- of  the  epistle.1  Doubtless  the  "stronger" 
and  the  "  weaker  "  made  up  only  a  small  part  of  the  entire 
membership,  and  neither  the  scruples  of  the  latter  nor  the 
independence  of  the  former,  who  were  apparently  Paulin- 
ists  of  an  extreme  type,  were  shared  by  the  majority  of  the 
disciples.  After  completing  what  he  has  to  say  upon  this 
subject,  Paul  appeals  once  more  to  the  fact  that  he  is  an 
apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  in  justification  of  his  writing  to 
the  Roman  Christians,  and  informs  them  of  his  plans, 
which  include  a  visit  to  Rome  in  the  near  future.  He 
then  closes  his  epistle  with  a  request  for  their  prayers  and 
with  a  benediction.2 

1  As  Pfleiderer,  for  instance,  does  in  his  Urchristenthum,  S.  119  sq.     I  am 
in  hearty  sympathy  with  Pfleiderer's  general  view  of  the  conditions  in  the 
Roman  church  and  have  learned  much  from  his  discussion ;  but  at  this  point 
I  am  unable  to  agree  with  him. 

2  Rom.  xv.  14-33.    Upon  chap,  xvi.,  which  was  apparently  intended  origi- 
nally not  for  Rome  but  for  Ephesus,  see  above,  p.  275  sq. 

z 


338  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 


11.   PAUL'S  FINAL  VISIT  TO  JERUSALEM  AND  HIS  ARREST  AND 
IMPRISONMENT 

When  Paul  wrote  the  epistle  known  as  First  Corin- 
thians, he  was  not  sure  whether  he  would  himself  go  to 
Jerusalem  with  the  collection  for  the  saints  or  would  send 
it  by  the  hand  of  others ; 1  but  at  the  time  he  wrote  to  the 
Roman  church,  his  plans  were  definitely  formed  to  make 
the  journey  himself.  Possibly  the  size  of  the  collection 
had  something  to  do  with  this  determination.  After  a 
stay  of  three  months  in  Corinth,  he  set  out  for  Jerusalem 
in  company  with  a  number  of  his  disciples  from  Macedonia, 
Asia,  and  Galatia.2  He  took  the  land-route  through  Mace- 
donia instead  of  the  more  direct  sea-route,  in  order,  according 
to  the  author  of  the  Acts,  to  avoid  hostile  Jews  who  were 
apparently  lying  in  wait -for  him  on  the  road  to  Cenchrese, 
or  had  laid  plans  to  murder  him  on  ship-board.  It  is  just 
at  this  point  that  the  "  we "  source  again  appears,  and 
from  it  is  taken  the  entire  account  of  the  journey  from 
Macedonia  to  Jerusalem.3  It  is  true  that  it  has  been  de- 
nied by  many  critics  that  the  "  we  "  document  contained 
the  record  of  Paul's  meeting  with  the  elder  brethren  of 
Ephesus  in  Miletus  found  in  Acts  xx.  17-38.  But  there 
seems  to  be  sufficient  reason  for  such  denial  neither  in 
the  general  fact  of  the  meeting  nor  in  the  words  which 
Paul  is  reported  to  have  spoken.  That  a  meeting  with 
some  one  at  Miletus  was  recorded  in  the  older  source,  is 
implied  in  xxi.  I,4  and  there  is  no  adequate  ground  for  the 
assumption  that  the  meeting  referred  to  was  of  a  different 
kind  from  that  described  by  the  author  of  the  Acts.  The 
known  quotations  from  the  "  we  "  document  are  too  few 
and  brief  to  warrant  the  assertion  that  it  cannot  have  con- 
tained an  extended  address,  and  while  there  are  sentences  in 
the  speech  recorded  in  the  twentieth  chapter  that  might  with 
some  show  of  reason  be  ascribed  to  the  author  of  the  Book 
of  Acts,  rather  than  to  the  writer  of  the  original  account,5 

1 1  Cor.  xvi.  4.  2  Acts  xx.  4.  8  Acts  xx.  5,  xxi.  18. 

4  "  And  when  it  came  to  pass  that  we  set  sail,  having  torn  ourselves  away 
from  them  "  (&iro<nraa6tvTa.s  air'  ai/rwv). 
6  As,  for  instance,  vss.  21  and  28-30. 


THE   WORK    OF   PAUL  339 

such  passages  can  be  employed  to  prove  at  most  only  that 
the  author  used  a  somewhat  free  hand  in  reproducing  the 
report  contained  in  his  sources,  as  we  have  reason  to  think 
that  he  did  in  other  cases.  It  is  to  be  noticed  that  Paul 
refers  in  the  address  in  question  to  experiences  in  Ephesus 
not  recorded  in  Acts  xix.,1  and  that  he  draws  a  picture  of 
his  residence  among  the  Ephesians  differing  quite  markedly 
from  the  picture  given  in  that  chapter,  but  agreeing  closely 
in  at  least  some  of  its  features  with  the  indications  in  his 
own  epistles  to  the  Corinthians.2  This  fact  of  course  speaks 
for  the  trustworthiness  of  the  address,  and  the  absence  of 
the  doctrinal  and  the  prominence  of  the  personal  element 
which  characterize  it  are  not  favorable  to  its  free  composi- 
tion by  the  author  of  the  book.  We  shall  be  safe,  then,  in 
assuming  that  the  account  of  Paul's  meeting  with  the 
elder  brethren  of  Ephesus  and  the  report  of  the  words 
which  he  uttered  are  substantially  accurate. 

The  reason  given  by  the  author  for  Paul's  desire  not  to 
visit  Ephesus,  and  for  his  consequent  request  that  certain 
of  the  Ephesian  Christians  should  meet  him  in  Miletus,3  is 
entirely  satisfactory.  That  he  should  wish  to  reach  Jeru- 
salem in  time  for  Pentecost  was  natural  enough,  for  there 
was  a  peculiar  fitness  in  offering  his  collection  to  the 
church  of  Jerusalem  on  that  occasion.  It  was  the  harvest 
feast  and  it  brought  to  Jerusalem  a  larger  number  of  foreign 
Jews  than  any  other  festival,  so  that  the  relation  between 
Palestine  and  the  rest  of  the  world  received  then  especial 
emphasis.  Paul  might  well  fear  that  a  visit  to  Ephesus, 
where  he  had  so  many  friends,  and  very  likely  enemies 
as  well,  would  demand  more  time  than  he  could  afford 
under  the  circumstances,  possibly  compelling  him  to  wait 
for  another  ship.  The  stay  of  a  week  in  Troas  and  again 
in  Tyre  was  probably  caused  not  by  his  desire  to  visit 
the  Christians  of  those  places  (in  Tyre  there  seem  to 
have  been  very  few  of  them),4  but  by  the  fact  that  his 
ship  did  not  sail  sooner ;  and  hence  those  delays  cannot 

1  Acts  xx.  19,  31,  34  sq. 

2  Cf.,  e.g.,  1  Cor.  iv.  12,  xv.  30  sq.,  xvi.  9 ;  2  Cor.  i.  8  sq. 
8  Acts  xx.  16.  4  Acts  xxi.  4,  5. 


340  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

be  urged  as  inconsistent  with  his  haste  at  Miletus.  At 
Ptolemais  Paul  and  his  companions  left  the  ship  and  made 
their  way  by  land  to  Csesarea.  After  spending  a  few  days 
there  in  the  house  of  Philip  the  Evangelist,  one  of  the 
"  Seven," 1  they  went  up  to  Jerusalem.  It  is  not  said 
whether  they  reached  there  in  season  for  Pentecost,  but 
they  had  abundance  of  time  to  do  so,  and  there  is  no  rea- 
son to  doubt  that  they  carried  out  their  original  plan.2 
Arrived  in  Jerusalem,  they  were  received  gladly  by  the 
Christians  there,  and  on  the  following  day,  according  to 
Acts  xxi.  18,  they  went  in  unto  James,  with  whom  were 
gathered  all  the  elder  brethren. 

The  account  of  the  proceedings  which  ensued  is  beset 
with  difficulties.  The  pronoun  "  we "  is  not  used  after 
vs.  18,  and  how  much  of  that  which  follows  is  taken  from 
the  "  we  "  source,  it  is  impossible  to  say.  According  to  the 
account  as  we  have  it,  Paul  was  induced  to  give  an  ocular 
demonstration  of  his  devotion  to  the  Jewish  law,  in  order 
to  prove  to  the  multitude  of  believers  in  Jerusalem,  who 
were  zealous  for  the  law,  that  there  was  no  truth  in  the 
report  which  they  had  heard,  that  he  was  himself  living  in 
disregard  of  the  law  of  Moses,  and  that  he  was  teaching 
Jews  everywhere  to  do  the  same.3  The  question  is,  Can 
Paul  have  taken  the  course  attributed  to  him  ?  It  is  clear, 
first  of  all,  that  the  report  of  his  conduct  which  was  current 
in  Jerusalem,  though  considerably  exaggerated,  was  never- 
theless true  at  least  in  part.  Paul  had  certainly  been  liv- 
ing for  years  in  entire  disregard  of  the  law  of  the  fathers. 
He  had  been  living  on  intimate  terms  with  his  Gentile 
converts  and  had  been  to  all  intents  and  purposes  a  Gentile. 
It  is  true  that  on  many  occasions,  in  the  company  of  Jews 

1  Acts  xxi.  8.    Upon  Philip,  see  above,  p.  95.    He  was  probably  called  the 
Evangelist  to  distinguish  him  from  the  apostle  of  the  same  name.     Upon 
the  confusion  of  Philip  the  Evangelist  and  Philip  the  Apostle  in  the  writ  ings 
of  the  fathers,  see  my  edition  of  Eusebius,  Bk.  III.  Chap.  xxxi.  not<-  <». 

2  See  Ramsay's  St.  Paul,  the  Traveller  and  the  Roman  Citizen,  p.  'J8'.>  sq., 
where  the  duration  of  the  journey  is  carefully  estimated.     For  a  different 
estimate  see  Overbeck  in  De  Wette's  Exegetisches  Handbuch  zuin  Ncuen 
Testament,  I.  4,  S.  336  sq.    Ramsay's  entire  account  of  the  journey  1o  .Jeru- 
salem is  interesting  and  instructive. 

3  Acts  xxi.  19-26. 


THE   WORK   OF  PAUL  341 

only,  he  may  have  lived  like  a  Jew,1  but  such  occasions 
constituted  exceptions  to  the  general  rule  of  his  life.  His 
habit,  apostle  to  the  Gentiles  as  he  was,  and  laboring  among 
them  almost  entirely  as  he  did,  must  have  been  to  treat  the 
law  of  Moses  as  if  it  no  longer  existed,  as  in  fact  it  did  not 
exist  either  for  him  or  for  any  other  Christian,  according 
to  his  view.  It  is  hardly  possible  therefore  to  suppose  that 
Paul  undertook  in  Jerusalem  to  prove  to  the  Jewish  Chris- 
tians there,  that  he  was  accustomed  to  "  walk  orderly,  keeping 
the  law."2  Moreover,  although  he  recognized  the  legitimacy 
of  Jewish  Christianity,  and  the  right  of  Peter  and  other 
apostles  to  preach  to  the  Jews  the  Gospel  of  circumcision,3 
and  though  there  is  no  evidence  that  he  ever  undertook  to 
lead  the  Jews  as  a  people  to  cease  observing  their  ancestral 
law,  he  had  certainly  been  in  the  habit  of  insisting  that  his 
Jewish  converts  should  associate  on  equal  terms  with  their 
Gentile  brethren,  and  that  they  should  not  allow  their  law 
to  act  in  any  way  as  a  barrier  to  the  freest  and  most  inti- 
mate association  with  them.4  But  this,  of  course,  meant, 
in  so  far,  their  violation  of  the  law's  commands.  It  is 
certain  also  that  Paul  had  preached  for  years  the  doctrine 
that  not  the  Gentile  Christian  alone  but  the  Jewish  Chris- 
tian as  well  is  absolutely  free  from  all  obligation  to  keep  the 
law  of  Moses,  and  though  such  teaching  might  not  always 
result  in  a  disregard  of  that  law  by  his  Jewish  converts,  it 
must  have  a  tendency  to  produce  that  effect  and  doubtless 
did  in  many  cases.  It  is  clear  therefore  that  both  accusa- 
tions had  much  truth  in  them,  and  it  is  difficult  to  suppose 
that  Paul  can  have  deliberately  attempted  in  Jerusalem  to 
prove  them  wholly  false. 

And  yet,  though  as  an  honorable  man  and  a  man  of 
principle  he  can  hardly  have  undertaken  to  demonstrate 
that  there  was  no  truth  in  the  reports  which  were  cir- 
culated concerning  him,  it  may  well  be  that  he  tried 
to  show  that  they  were  not  wholly  true.  It  was  evi- 
dently assumed  by  those  who  accused  him  of  "teaching 
all  the  Jews  which  are  among  the  Gentiles  to  forsake 

1  Cf.  1  Cor.  ix.  20.  a  Gal.  ii.  7. 

2  Acts  xxi.  24.  *  Cf.,  e.g.,  Gal.  ii.  11  sq. 


342  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

Moses,  telling  them  not  to  circumcise  their  children, 
neither  to  walk  after  the  customs,"1  that  he  hated  the 
Jewish  law  and  that  he  was  doing  all  that  lay  in  his 
power  to  destroy  it ;  that  he  believed  and  that  he  taught 
everywhere  that  its  observance  was  under  any  and  all  cir- 
cumstances a  positive  sin.  But  this  assumption  was  not 
true.  Paul  was  certainly  not  hostile  to  the  law  in  any 
such  sense.  He  believed  that  it  had  no  binding  authority 
over  a  Christian,  and  he  opposed  with  all  his  might  the 
idea  that  its  observance  had  any  value  as  a  means  of  salva- 
tion, or  that  it  contributed  in  any  way  to  the  believer's 
righteousness  or  growth  in  grace ;  but  he  held  no  such 
view  of  the  law  as  made  its  observance  necessarily  sinful, 
and  rendered  it  impossible  for  him  ever  to  observe  it  him- 
self in  any  respect.  And  it  was  not  at  all  unnatural  that 
he  should  desire  to  convince  the  Christians  of  Jerusalem 
of  the  fact ;  especially  when  he  had  come  thither  with  the 
express  purpose  of  conciliating  them  and  winning  their 
favor  for  himself  and  for  his  Gentile  converts.  He  would 
have  been  very  foolish  under  these  circumstances  to  allow 
such  a  false  impression  touching  his  attitude  toward  the 
law  to  go  uncontradicted.  Had  he  been  in  the  midst  of 
his  conflict  with  Judaizers,  it  might  have  been  safer  to  let 
such  an  impression  prevail  than  to  run  the  risk  of  playing 
into  their  hands  in  the  endeavor  to  remove  it.  Such  a  step 
as  he  is  reported  to  have  taken  in  Acts  xxi.  26  would 
doubtless  have  been  used  against  him  by  them,  and  would 
have  constituted  an  effective  weapon  in  their  campaign 
among  the  Gentiles.  But  Paul's  bitter  war  with  Judaizers 
was  a  thing  of  the  past.  At  least  six  or  seven  years  had 
elapsed  since  it  was  fought  through  in  Galatia,  and  the 
final  victory  won.  There  was  consequently  no  such  danger 
now  as  there  might  have  been  at  an  earlier  day.  It  is 
worthy  of  notice  that  the  accusations  brought  against  him 
in  Jerusalem  did  not  emanate  from  Judaizers.  There  is 
no  hint  that  fault  was  found  with  him  because  he  preached 
a  Gentile  Christianity.  His  course  was  criticised  by  Jewish 
Christians,  who  held  the  position  taken  by  the  majority  of 

i  Acts  xxi.  21. 


THE   WORK   OF  PAUL  343 

the  church  of  Jerusalem  some  years  before,  at  the  time  of 
the  apostolic  conference.  They  maintained,  as  had  been 
maintained  then,  not  that  the  Jewish  law  is  binding  upon 
the  Gentiles,  but  that  it  is  binding  upon  Jews,  whether 
disciples  of  Christ  or  not.  And  so  there  was  little  rea- 
son for  Paul  to  fear  that  his  public  observance  of  the  law 
at  this  time  would  do  harm  among  the  Gentiles ;  while 
he  might  well  hope  that  such  observance  would  serve  to 
prove  the  falsehood  of  the  report  that  he  hated  the  law 
and  thought  it  sinful  to  keep  it  under  any  circumstances 
and  in  any  part.  The  action  which  Paul  is  recorded  to 
have  taken  was  calculated  to  demonstrate  the  falsity  of 
just  such  a  report.  But  it  was  entirely  inadequate  as  a 
proof  that  he  always  kept  the  law,  or  that  it  was  his  regular 
habit  to  keep  it ;  and  it  was  equally  inadequate  as  a  proof 
that  he  never  advised  Jewish  Christians  to  neglect  its 
observance.  It  seems  evident  in  the  light  of  all  that  has 
been  said,  that  Paul  may  well  have  done  just  what  he  is  re- 
ported to  have  done  in  Acts  xxi.  26.  But  if  he  did,  it  must 
have  been  not  to  prove  that  the  two  accusations  brought 
against  him  were  wholly  false,  but  that  he  was  not  as  hos- 
tile to  the  law  as  those  who  made  the  accusations  repre- 
sented, and  as  was  commonly  supposed  in  Jerusalem.  There 
is  therefore  no  sufficient  ground  for  denying  the  truth  of 
the  fact  recorded  in  xxi.  26,  a  fact  for  whose  invention  no 
plausible  explanation  can  be  given ; l  but  there  is  every 
reason  for  thinking  that  vs.  24  does  not  represent  with 
entire  accuracy  the  motive  which  prompted  Paul  to  take 
the  step  he  did. 

The  step,  though  recommended  by  James  and  the  other 
leaders  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem,  had  quite  another  effect 
from  that  intended.  It  led,  in  fact,  to  the  accusation  that 
Paul  was  profaning  the  temple,  and  the  result  was  an  up- 

1  It  is  to  be  noticed  that  the  action  recommended  by  the  leaders  of  the 
church  of  Jerusalem  and  adopted  by  Paul  failed  entirely  to  accomplish  its 
end ;  and  the  reputation  for  wisdom  enjoyed  both  by  himself  and  by  James 
must  thus  suffer  in  the  eyes  of  the  reader.  When  a  simpler  explanation  of 
Paul's  arrest  would  have  answered  every  purpose,  the  explanation  given  can 
be  accounted  for  only  on  the  assumption  that  it  is  the  true  one  and  that  the 
author  of  the  Acts  found  it  in  his  sources. 


344  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

roar  and  his  arrest  by  the  Roman  authorities,  as  a  di& 
turber  of  the  peace.1  The  instigators  of  the  attack  are 
said  to  have  been  Jews  from  Asia,2  who  had  seen  among 
Paul's  companions  the  Gentile  Trophimus  of  Ephesus,  evi- 
dently personally  known  to  them,'  and  supposed  that  he 
was  one  of  the  men  whom  Paul  had  taken  with  him  into 
the  temple.  Paul's  arrest  was  not  wholly  unexpected  to 
him.  Of  course,  he  had  not  foreseen  that  his  effort  to 
conciliate  the  Christians  of  Jerusalem,  and  to  disprove  the 
accusation  brought  against  him,  would  have  such  an  effect, 
but  that  he  had  serious  fears  that  his  journey  would  end 
disastrously,  and  would  result  even  in  his  death,  is  shown 
by  his  request  in  Rom.  xv.  31,  that  his  readers  would  join 
him  in  the  prayer  that  he  might  be  "  delivered  from  them 
that  are  disobedient  in  Judea."  His  words  to  the  elder 
brethren  of  Ephesus,  recorded  in  Acts  xx.  22  sq.,  also  re- 
veal the  same  apprehension.  He  had  hoped,  when  he 
wrote  to  the  Romans,  that  his  mission  to  Jerusalem  would 
prove  successful,  and  that  he  would  escape  imprisonment 
and  death ;  but  by  the  time  he  reached  Miletus  he  was  con- 
vinced that  his  hope  was  vain,  and  that  he  must  be  pre- 
pared for  the  worst.  The  same  feeling  was  shared  by 
others  whom  he  met  upon  his  journey,3  and  the  effort  was 
made  by  his  friends  to  dissuade  him  from  carrying  out  his 
purpose.4  But  Paul  refused  to  listen  to  their  pleadings, 
declaring  that  he  was  ready  not  only  to  be  bound,  as 
Agabus  had  foretold  that  he  would  be,  but  also  to  die  for 
the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  in  Jerusalem.5  It  is  not  sur- 
prising that  fears  should  have  been  entertained  as  to  the 
outcome  of  Paul's  journey.  He  had  not  been  in  Jerusalem 
since  the  conference,  more  than  half  a  dozen  years  before, 
and  in  the  meantime  his  work  among  the  Gentiles  had 

1  Acts  xxi.  27  sq. 

2  It  is  perhaps  significant  that  the  Jews  were  from  Asia,  where  Paul  had 
already  had  considerable  trouble  with  his  countrymen. 

8  Acts  xxi.  4,  11.  The  former  passage  is  especially  strong  because  it  repre- 
sents the  Spirit  as  directing  him  not  to  go  up  to  Jerusalem.  In  the  latter  pas- 
sage Agabus,  who  on  an  earlier  occasion  had  foretold  the  famine  (Acts  xi.  28), 
prophesies  that  Paul  is  to  be  bound  by  the  Jews  at  Jerusalem,  and  delivered 
into  the  hands  of  the  Gentiles. 

<  Acts  xxi.  12.  6  Acts  xxi.  13. 


THE  WORK  OF   PAUL  345 

proved  very  successful  both  in  Asia  and  in  Europe,  and 
his  reputation  as  an  apostate  Jew,  who  was  doing  all  he 
could  to  destroy  the  influence  of  Judaism  in  the  world  at 
large,  had  become  widespread.  The  hostility  of  the  Jews 
toward  him  was  weir  known,  and  it  must  have  seemed 
extremely  hazardous  for  him  to  make  his  appearance  in 
Jerusalem.  He  could  hardly  fail,  if  his  presence  there 
were  known,  to  precipitate  a  conflict  from  which  it  was 
decidedly  doubtful  whether  he  would  escape  with  his  life, 
in  view  of  the  known  tendency  of  the  Romans  to  placate 
the  Jews  in  every  possible  way,  and  to  guard  their  national 
and  religious  customs  from  violation.  The  only  surpris- 
ing thing  about  the  whole  transaction  is,  that  under  such 
circumstances  Paul  should  still  have  insisted  upon  going 
to  Jerusalem.  It  may  be  that  he  decided  to  make  the  trip 
before  he  fully  realized  the  danger  that  was  involved  in  it, 
and  that  he  did  not  wish  to  turn  back  out  of  seeming 
cowardice.  But  it  is  more  probable  that  he  felt  it  his 
duty  to  visit  Jerusalem  in  order  that  now,  after  these  years 
of  separate  development,  the  bond  between  the  Jewish  and 
Gentile  wings  of  the  church  might  be  finally  cemented,  and 
thus  the  foundation  laid  for  the  realization  of  his  dream  of 
the  salvation  of  all  Israel,  following  upon  the  conversion 
of  the  Gentiles.1  If  he  had  such  a  conception  as  this  of 
the  possible  significance  of  his  visit  to  Jerusalem,  he  was 
not  the  man  to  be  deterred  from  going  thither  by  any 
dangers,  however  great.  For  the  accomplishment  of  such 
an  end,  he  would  gladly  lay  down  his  life  at  any  time. 

The  arrest  of  Paul  in  Jerusalem,  the  various  scenes  in 
his  trial,  the  circumstances  under  which  he  finally  appealed 
to  Caesar,  and  his  journey  to  Rome  as  a  prisoner  are  related 
by  the  author  of  the  Acts  at  great  length.  A  quarter  of 
his  entire  book  is  devoted  to  these  events.  The  great 
emphasis  thus  put  upon  this  part  of  Paul's  life  is  all  the 
more  striking  when  we  realize  that  the  Book  of  Acts  falls 
into  four  nearly  equal  parts ;  the  first  of  which  contains 
the  history  of  the  early  church  of  Jerusalem ; 2  the  second, 

1  Cf.  with  Rom.  ix.,  xi.,  Rom.  xv.  20  sq.,  and  especially  vs.  27. 

2  Acts  i.-vii. 


34G  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

the  account  of  the  spread  of  Christianity  through  the 
agency  especially  of  Philip,  Peter,  Barnabas,  and  Paul, 
with  the  beginnings  of  the  work  among  the  Gentiles ; l 
the  third,  the  record  of  the  great  missionary  career  of  Paul 
after  the  official  settlement  of  the  question  as  to  the  con- 
ditions upon  which  the  Gentiles  were  to  be  admitted  to 
the  church ; 2  and  the  fourth,  his  arrest  and  imprisonment.3 
That  the  arrest  and  imprisonment  should  fill  so  dispropor- 
tionate a  space  in  an  historical  work  like  the  Book  of 
Acts  is  very  surprising ;  and  particularly  so  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  though  the  chapters  devoted  to  the  subject 
cover  a  period  of  nearly  five  years,  they  contain  almost  no 
reference  to  Paul's  occupations  and  labors  during  that  time, 
but  describe  at  great  length,  and  with  many  repetitions, 
his  successive  appearances  before  one  and  another  tribunal. 
If  it  appeared  that  the  remarkable  fulness  of  the  author's 
account  of  this  part  of  Paul's  life  was  due  to  the  fact  that 
he  made  use,  in  all  parts  of  his  book,  of  all  the  sources  he 
possessed,  and  that  for  this  particular  period  he  had  more 
extended  sources  than  for  any  other,  the  phenomenon  would 
be  of  less  significance.  But  such  a  supposition  is  unwar- 
ranted. If  anything  is  clear,  it  is  that  the  Book  of  Acts  is 
not  a  mere  collection  of  documents,  but  a  well-ordered  and 
artistically  arranged  composition.  The  author,  made  con- 
siderable use  of  older  sources,  but  he  treated  them  with 
freedom,  and  arranged  them  in  such  a  way  as  to  exhibit 
the  general  course  of  development  as  he  understood  it.  It 
is  true  that  he  gives  a  disproportionate  space  to  the  "  we  " 
passages,  with  their  wealth  of  minor  detail,  and  if  it  could 
be  shown  that  he  drew  the"  whole  of  the  fourth  part  of  his 
book  from  the  same  report  of  an  eyewitness,  the  amount 
of  space  devoted  to  Paul's  arrest  and  imprisonment  might 
possibly  thus  be  accounted  for.  But  there  are  many  things 
in  chapters  xxii.-xxvi.  which  it  is  impossible  to  ascribe  to 
such  a  source.  It  would  seem  therefore  that  Luke  must 
have  had  a  distinct  and  definite  purpose  in  devoting  so 
much  space  to  a  matter  of  comparatively  minor  historical 
importance.  What  that  purpose  was  can  hardly  be  doubted. 

1  Acts  viii.-xiv.  2  Acts  xv.-xxi.  26.  8  Acts  xxi.  27-xxviii. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  347 

It  is  noticeable  that  throughout  the  Book  of  Acts,  whenever 
Christianity  is  brought  in  any  form  to  the  cognizance  of  the 
Roman  authorities,  its  harmless  character  is  vindicated  to 
their  complete  satisfaction.  So  in  Cyprus  the  proconsul 
Sergius  Paulus  himself  becomes  a  believer ; l  in  Philippi 
the  Roman  magistrates,  after  scourging  Paul  and  Silas, 
and  committing  them  to  prison  without  a  trial,  formally 
release  them  with  an  apology  for  the  illegal  punishment 
inflicted  upon  them ; 2  in  Corinth  the  proconsul  Gallio 
refuses  to  entertain  the  charges  brought  against  Paul  by 
the  Jews;3  in  Ephesus  certain  of  the  Asiarchs  are  spoken 
of  as  the  apostle's  friends,4  and  the  effort  of  Demetrius 
and  his  fellow-workmen  to  secure  the  condemnation^ of 
Paul  and  his  companions  comes  to  naught,  while  the  city 
clerk,  who  stood  nearest  to  the  governor  of  the  province, 
distinctly  vindicates  the  missionaries  and  denounces  the 
attack  upon  them  as  unjustifiable  and  illegal.5  On  the 
other  hand,  it  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  there  is  no  record 
in  the  book  of  a  condemnation  passed,  or  a  punishment 
inflicted  upon  Paul  or  his  companions  by  the  Roman 
authorities,  except  at  Philippi,  and  then  the  officials  them- 
selves apologize  afterwards  for  their  action.6  And  yet  it 
can  hardly  be  doubted  that  at  least  some  of  the  sufferings 
which  Paul  was  called  upon  to  endure,  according  to  2  Cor. 
xi.  23  sq.,  were  inflicted  by  Roman  officials,  and  the  death 
sentence  passed  upon  him  in  Ephesus,  to  which  he  refers 
in  1  Cor.  xv.  32,  but  of  which  no  mention  is  made  in  the 
Acts,  must  have  proceeded  from  the  Roman  governor  or 
his  representative. 

i  Acts  xiii.  12.        2  Acts  xvi.  35  sq.        8  Acts  xviii.  12  sq.        4  Acts  xix.  31. 

5  Acts  xix.  35  sq.    It  is  worthy  of  notice,  that  though  the  town  clerk  invites 
Demetrius  and  his  fellows  to  bring  their  grievances  before  the  proconsular 
court,  Luke  does  not  record  that  they  did  anything  of  the  kind. 

6  The  trouble  in  Pisidian  Antioch,  Iconium,  and  Lystra  (Acts  xiii.  and  xiv.) 
is  distinctly  said  to  have  been  instigated  by  the  Jews,  and  the  impression  is 
conveyed  that  Paul  and  Barnabas  were  not  regularly  condemned  before  any 
judicial  tribunal,  but  were  the  victims  of  popular  prejudice,  and  in  Lystra,  at 
least,  of  mob  violence.    In  Thessalonica,  in  spite  of  the  very  serious  charge 
brought  against  the  missionaries  and  their  converts,  the  rulers  of  the  city 
before  whom  Jason  and  others  were  arraigned  did  nothing  more  than  take 
security  from  them  to  keep  the  peace,  and  then  released  them  without  punish- 
ing them  in  any  way. 


348  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

The  tendency  which  thus  appears  in  other  parts  of 
the  book  to  exhibit  Christianity  in  its  relation  to  the 
state  in  as  harmless  a  light  as  possible,  and  to  empha- 
size the  fact  that  the  Roman  authorities  had  uniformly 
regarded  it  in  that  light,  is  still  more  clearly  seen  in 
the  chapters  with  which  we  are  now  dealing.  In  those 
chapters  Paul  comes  into  contact  with  three  different 
lloman  officials,  and  two  of  them  bear  express  testimony 
to  his  innocence,1  while  the  third  shows  him  considerable 
favor,  and  refrains  from  setting  him  free  only  because  he 
wishes  to  conciliate  the  Jews,  and  because  he  hopes,  at  the 
same  time,  to  receive  a  bribe  from  Paul's  friends.2  The 
Jewish  king  Agrippa,  who  stood  in  high  favor  at  Rome, 
also  adds  his  testimony  to  that  of  Lysias  and  Festus.3 
And  so,  though  Paul  remains  a  prisoner  in  Csesarea  for 
more  than  two  years,  no  condemnation  is  passed  upon  him 
by  any  Roman  tribunal.  On  the  contrary,  his  judges  uni- 
formly pronounce  him  innocent,  and  his  final  release  is 
prevented  only  by  the  fact  that  he  has  appealed  to  Caesar ; 
and  when  he  is  sent  to  Rome  as  a  prisoner,  it  is  as  an  appel- 
lant not  from  an  adverse  decision  of  the  governor,  but  in 
spite  of  a  favorable  decision. 

There  can  be  little  doubt  in  the  light  of  these  facts  that 
the  author  of  the  Book  of  Acts  devoted  so  much  space  to 
the  arrest  and  imprisonment  of  Paul,  and  related  his  suc- 
cessive appearances  before  various  tribunals  with  such  a 
wealth  of  detail,  in  order  to  show  that  Christianity  in  the 
person  of  its  chief  missionary  and  at  the  very  climax  of 
his  career,  after  he  had  preached  it  throughout  a  large 
part  of  the  empire,  was  acquitted  by  the  Roman  authori- 
ties in  the  most  pronounced  way  and  after  the  most  care- 
ful investigation.4  There  must  have  been  an  especial 
reason  for  the  emphasis  of  this  fact  in  the  position  in 
which  the  Christians  found  themselves  placed  at  the  time 

1  The  chief  captain,  Claudius  Lysias,  in  xxiii.  29  sq.,  and  the  governor, 
Festus,  in  xxv.  26  and  xxvi.  31. 

2  Acts  xxiv.  22  sq.  8  Acts  xxvi.  32. 

4  In  the  third  Gospel,  the  same  interest  appears  in  connection  with  the  trial 
of  Jesus,  Pilate's  repeated  declaration  of  Jesus'  innocence  being  recorded  only 
in  that  Gospel  (Luke  xxiii.  4, 14,  22). 


THE  WORK  OF  PAUL  349 

the  book  was  written.  They  were  probably  looked  upon 
with  disfavor,  and  were  treated  with  more  or  less  hostility 
by  the  imperial  officials  at  that  time ;  and  the  author  was 
concerned  not  simply  to  write  an  account  of  the.  early 
days  of  Christianity  for  the  instruction  of  a  friend,  but 
also  to  present  an  apology  for  it  to  the  authorities  of  the 
state.1  Only  on  this  assumption  can  we  explain  the  dis- 
proportionate amount  of  space  given  to  a  subject  which 
from  a  purely  historical  standpoint  is  of  comparatively 
minor  importance.  It  was  doubtless  this  same  desire 
that  led  the  author  to  close  his  book  without  mention- 
ing the  condemnation  and  execution  of  Paul,  to  whose 
arrest  and  imprisonment  he  had  devoted  so  much  space ;  to 
close  it  rather  with  a  reference  to  the  large  degree  of 
liberty  which  he  enjoyed  in  Rome,  —  a  liberty  which  in- 
cluded the  permission  to  preach  the  Gospel  without  let 
or  hindrance  to  all  that  would  listen  to  him,  and  thus 
showed  that  Christianity  was  not  regarded  as  harmful 
and  dangerous  by  the  state.  The  author  could  not,  of 
course,  deny  that  Paul  was  finally  condemned  and  exe- 
cuted, and  his  silence  does  not  imply  that  he  wished  his 
readers  to  think  that  he  had  not  been  ;  but  to  mention  the 
fact  would  have  been  entirely  out  of  line  with  his  purpose, 
and  he  therefore  recorded  only  that  part  of  the  process 
which  was  distinctly  favorable  to  Paul,  and  thus  endeav- 
ored to  leave  the  impression  that  his  execution  was  en- 
tirely unjustifiable,  as  of  course  he  believed  that  it  was.2 

Turning  to  the  account  of  Paul's  arrest  and  imprison- 
ment contained  in  the  chapters  of  which  we  have  been 

1  Various  indications  point  to  the  reign  of  Domitian  as  the  date  of  the  com- 
position of  the  Book  of  Acts.    During  his  reign  the  Christians  suffered  con- 
siderably from  the  hostility  of  the  state  (see  below,  p.  (530).    Moreover,  the 
conception  of  Christianity  which  prevails  throughout  the  book  is  similar  in 
many  respects  to  that  which  is  found  in  other  documents  of  that  period.    See 
below,  pp.  437,  4(>2. 

2  Ramsay  also  agrees  in  his  interpretation  of  the  purpose  which  governed 
Luke  in  the  composition  of  the  last  part  of  Acts,  and  he  emphasizes  the  evi- 
dences of  that  purpose,  which  appear  in  earlier  chapters  (St.  Paul,  the  Travel- 
ler and  the  Roman  Citizen,  p.  303  sq.)-    But  the  conclusion  which  he  draws 
therefrom,  that  Luke  must  have  planned  to  write  a  third  work,  describing 
the  acquittal  and  release  of  Paul  and  his  subsequent  labors,  I  am  quite  unable 
to  accept.    See  below,  p.  418. 


350  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

speaking,  we  learn  that  immediately  upon  his  arrest  he  wag 
permitted  to  address  the  excited  Jewish  multitude  in  his 
own  defence.1  A  reference,  however,  to  his  mission  to  the 
Gentiles  gave  rise  to  a  second  outbreak,  and  he  was  hurried 
into  the  castle  and  commanded  by  the  tribune  Lysias  to 
be  examined  by  scourging,  in  order  that  the  nature  of  his 
offence  might  be  determined.2  But  Paul  appealed  to  his 
Roman  citizenship,  which  guaranteed  immunity  from  such 
indignity,  and  the  result  was  that  he  not  only  escaped  a 
scourging,  but  also  received  much  more  consideration 
from  the  authorities  than  would  otherwise  have  been 
shown  him.3  Still  uncertain  as  to  the  cause  of  all  the 
trouble,  Lysias  brought  him  on  the  following  day  before  the 
Sanhedrim,  in  order  that  he  might  learn  what  it  was  that 
the  Jews  accused  him  of.4  He  got  little  satisfaction, 

1  The  address  is  given  in  xxii.  3-21.    There  is  nothing  in  the  early  part 
of  it  that  might  not  have  been  spoken  by  Paul  upon  such  an  occasion,  but 
vs.  17  sq.,  in  which  he  is  represented  as  returning  to  Jerusalem  after  his 
conversion,  with  the  intention  of  beginning  his  missionary  work  there,  can 
hardly  be  regarded  as  his  own  utterance.    Indeed,  the  relation  of  the  speech 
to  the  parallel  accounts  in  chaps,  ix.  and  xxvi.  is  such  as  to  make  it  probable 
that,  like  the  former,  it  was  composed  by  the  author  of  the  Acts  upon  the  basis 
of  the  latter  (see  above,  p.  120).    Luke  may  have  found  in  his  sources  the 
statement  that  Paul  made  an  address  on  this  particular  occasion,  and  that  he 
should  reproduce  what  he  supposed  to  be  its  general  tenor  and  contents  was 
but  natural.    He  knew  that  Paul  was  guiltless  of  the  charge  of  insurrection 
preferred  against  him  (Acts  xxi.  38,  xxiv.  5)  and  he  understood  that  the  hos- 
tility of  the  Jews  was  due  primarily  to  his  preaching  of  the  Gospel  to  the 
Gentiles.    There  was  no  better  way,  therefore,  to  demonstrate  his  innocence 
and  to  exhibit  the  intolerance  of  the  Jews  and  the  groundlessness  of  their 
enmity  toward  him,  than  to  let  him  recount  in  his  own  words  his  conversion 
and  divine  commission. 

2  Acts  xxii.  22  sq.  3  Acts  xxii.  25,  xxiii.  27. 

4  There  is  nothing  improbable  in  the  report  that  Lysias  brought  Paul 
before  the  Sanhedrim ;  but  the  scene  depicted  in  xxiii.  1-10  is  not  without 
difficulties.  The  Pharisees  in  the  council  must  have  been  bitterly  hostile  to 
Paul  as  a  man  who  taught  everywhere  against  the  people  and  the  law  and  the 
temple.  That  they  should  have  been  led  to  support  him  by  his  declaration 
that  he  preached  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  that  the  Sadducees  alone 
should  have  remained  hostile  to  him,  because  of  their  opposition  to  that  doc- 
trine, can  hardly  be  believed.  The  resurrection,  while  it  was  accepted  by  the 
one  party  and  denied  by  the  other,  was  a  minor  matter  with  both  sects,  and 
was  not  at  all  the  ground  of  their  mutual  hostility.  Paul's  assertion  of  it 
could  not  have  led  the  Pharisees  to  condone  his  offence  against  the  law;  nor 
would  it  have  sufficed  to  make  the  Sadducees  his  persecutors.  Luke's  idea  is 
similar  to  that  which  appears  in  Acts  iv.  2,  where  he  represents  their  opposi- 
tion t  >  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  as  the  ground  of  the  Sadducees'  attack 
upon  the  early  disciples.  The  basis  of  the  account  which  he  gives  of  Paul's 
arraignment  before  the  Sanhedrim  may  possibly  have  lain  in  Lysias'  reference 
to  it  in  xxiii.  28,  29. 


THE  WORK  OF  PAUL  351 

however,  from  them ;  and  learning  of  a  plot  which  had 
been  formed  against  Paul  by  more  than  forty  Jews,1  he 
thought  it  wisest  to  send  his  troublesome  prisoner  to 
Ceesarea,  the  residence  of  the  procurator.  He  therefore 
hurried  him  away  under  cover  of  the  night  and  in  charge 
of  a  strong  guard.2 

Arrived  in  Csesarea,  Paul  was  brought  to  trial  after  five 
days  3  before  the  procurator  Felix,  and  was  then  formally 
accused  by  the  Jews  not  only  of  attempting  to  profane  the 
temple,  but  also  and  especially  of  being  an  habitual  insur- 
rectionist.4 The  latter  was  one  of  the  worst  charges  that 
could  be  brought  against  a  man  in  the  eyes  of  the  Roman 
state,  which  was  quick  to  put  down  with  a  strong  hand  dis- 
turbances and  uprisings  among  the  provincials,  whatever 
their  character  or  occasion.  The  Jews  did  not  succeed, 
however,  in  making  their  charge  good.  Felix,  who  doubt- 
less knew  them  well  after  his  long  residence  among  them, 
was  aware  that  they  cared  far  less  about  the  peace  of  the 
empire  than  about  their  own  law  and  customs ;  and  he  no 
doubt  saw  at  once  that  their  hostility  to  Paul,  of  whose 
case  he  had  alread}^  been  informed  by  the  tribune  Lysias, 
was  due  solely  to  religious  differences.  At  the  same  time, 
he  did  not  wish  to  incur  the  enmity  of  the  Jews  by  releas- 
ing immediately  a  prisoner  in  whose  condemnation  they 
were  so  deeply  interested ;  and  so,  after  listening  to  Paul's 
defence,5  he  reserved  his  decision  upon  the  pretext  that  he 

1  Acts  xxiii.  12  sq.    Of  Paul's  sister,  mentioned  in  vs.  16,  and  of  her  son, 
who  discovered  the  plot  and  disclosed  it  to  the  tribune,  we  have  no  other 
information. 

2  Acts  xxiii.  23  sq.    The  letter  which  Lysias  is  represented  to  have  written 
to  Felix  concerning  Paul  (xxiii.  26-30)  bears  marks  of  genuineness,  and  may 
possibly  have  constituted  one  of  the  sources  used  by  Luke  in  the  composition 
of  this  part  of  his  book. 

3  Acts  xxiv.  1  sq.  4  Acts  xxiv.  5  and  6. 

5  Recorded  in  Acts  xxiv.  10  sq.  The  address  which  Paul  is  reported  to  have 
made  on  this  occasion,  if  not  a  free  composition  by  the  author  of  the  Acts,  is 
at  any  rate  only  partially  Paul's,  for  it  contains  some  utterances  that  are 
quite  out  of  line  with  his  character  and  teaching.  Cf.,  e.g.,  vs.  11,  and  espe- 
cially vs.  15  with  its  emphasis  upon  the  resurrection  not  only  of  the  just,  but 
also  of  the  unjust.  Verse  17  with  its  reference  to  the  great  collection  for  the 
saints  at  Jerusalem,  which  the  author  of  the  Acts  entirely  omits  to  mention  in 
his  account  of  Paul's  life  and  work,  looks  like  a  reminiscence  of  words  actu- 
ally spoken  by  Paul  before  Felix.  But  in  its  existing  form  it  betrays  a  later 
hand.  It  is  possible,  to  be  sure,  that  Paul  may  have  represented  the  collection 


352  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

wished  to  have  a  personal  consultation  with  the  tribune 
who  had  made  the  arrest.1  In  the  meantime  he  committed 
Paul  to  the  care  of  a  centurion,  with  the  command  that 
he  should  be  treated  with  indulgence,  and  that  his  friends 
should  be  allowed  to  visit  him  freely.2  Such  military 
custody,  as  it  was  called,  was  a  regular  form  of  imprison- 
ment under  Roman  law,  and  was  intended  to  provide  for 
the  safe-keeping  of  an  accused  person,  pending  his  trial, 
without  subjecting  him  to  the  discomfort  and  misery  of 
confinement  in  the  public  jail.3  Felix  thus  held  Paul  a 
prisoner  without  deciding  his  case  until  the  close  of  his 
term  of  office  two  years  later.  That  Paul  should  have 
been  kept  in  custody  so  long  is  not  surprising.  A  Roman 
magistrate  had  the  right  to  fix  the  time  for  the  hearing  of 
a  case,  and  such  a  protracted  confinement  as  Paul  was 
subjected  to  was  not  at  all  uncommon.  The  author  of 
the  Acts,  moreover,  gives  a  special  and  entirely  credible 
reason  for  the  long  delay  in  the  present  case,  when  he 
reports  that  Felix  hoped  to  receive  money  for  releasing 
Paul.4  Such  conduct  was  quite  in  accord  with  his  char- 
acter as  we  know  it  from  Josephus  and  Tacitus ; 5  and  the 
close  bond  which  existed  among  Christians,  and  the  evi- 
dent affection  in  which  Paul  was  held  by  his  friends  and 
followers,  might  well  encourage  him  to  expect  a  large  bribe. 

which  he  brought  to  his  Christian  brethren  as  alms  and  offerings  for  his  nation, 
but  he  could  hardly  have  said  that  he  presented  them  in  the  temple  without  lay- 
ing himself  open  to  the  charge  of  disingenuousness.  It  looks  as  if  Luke,  know- 
ing nothing  about  the  collection,  interpreted  a  reference  to  it  as  applying  to 
the  offerings  made  in  connection  with  the  vow  which  Paul  had  assumed  in 
Jerusalem  (Acts  xxi.  23). 

i  Acts  xxiv.  22.  2  Acts  xxiv.  23. 

8  Persons  held  for  trial  might  be  confined  in  the  public  jail,  which  was 
usually  a  wretched  hole,  or  they  might  be  placed  in  military  custody,  or  if 
they  were  persons  of  distinction,  be  given  into  the  care  of  some  official  of  high 
rank,  who  could  grant  them  as  much  liberty  as  he  chose,  so  long  as  he  pro- 
•duced  them  at  the  time  of  their  trial.  A  man  held  in  military  custody  might 
reside  in  the  barracks  or  sometimes  in  a  private  house,  but  he  was  commonly 
chained  to  his  guard,  who  was  made  responsible  for  his  safe-keeping  with  his 
life  (cf.  Wieseler:  Chronologic  d.  ap.  Zeitalters,  S.  380  sq.).  Whether  Paul, 
while  in  Cfesarea,  lived  in  the  barracks  or  in  some  private  house  as  he  did 
la'ter  in  Rome,  we  are  not  told,  but  the  former  is  more  probable  in  view  of  the 
author's  silence  here  and  of  his  explicit  statement  in  xxviii.  30,  in  connection 
with  the  Roman  imprisonment. 

4  Acts  xxiv.  26.  5  Josephus :  Ant.  XX.  8 ;  Tacitus :  Ann.  XII.  M. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  353 

Paul's  innocence  was  by  no  means  so  apparent  as  it  per- 
haps seems  to  us ;  and  though  he  was  a  Roman  citizen, 
Felix  could  hold  him  a  long  time  for  trial  without  subject- 
ing himself  to  the  charge  of  flagrant  injustice. 

In  spite  of  the  large  amount  of  space  which  the  Book 
of  Acts  devotes  to  Paul's  Caesarean  imprisonment,  we  know 
in  reality  very  little  about  it.  Luke's  account  is  confined 
wholly  to  Paul's  dealings  with  the  authorities,  and  except 
for  the  single  statement  that  he  was  treated  with  indul- 
gence and  was  permitted  to  see  his  friends  at  will,  we  have 
no  information  about  his  life  and  work  during  this  period. 
It  is  true  that  there  are  three  epistles,  Colossians,  Phile- 
mon, and  Ephesians,  which  some  scholars  suppose  to  have 
been  written  at  this  time.1  But  it  is  probable  that  the 
traditional  and  commonly  accepted  opinion  is  correct  and 
that  they  were  written  in  Rome  rather  than  in  Csesarea, 
so  that  we  cannot  use  them  as  sources  for  a  knowledge  of 
the  apostle's  activities  and  experiences  during  his  stay  in 
Csesarea. 

Some  two  years  after  Paul's  arrest  Felix  was  succeeded 
by  Porcius  Festus.2  Immediately  upon  his  arrival  in  Gees- 
area  the  new  procurator  went  up  to  Jerusalem,  and  while 
there  was  told  about  the  prisoner  whom  Felix  had  left 
in  bonds,  and  was  requested  by  the  leading  Jews  to  send 
him  thither  for  trial  before  the  Sanhedrim.3  Festus,  how- 
ever, with  a  proper  regard  for  Paul's  rights,  refused  to 
accede  to  their  request,  but  promised  to  take  up  the  matter 
as  soon  as  he  returned  to  Csesarea,  and  advised  them  to 
be  on  hand  with  their  accusations.  When  the  case  came 
on  for  trial,  Festus  saw  that  it  had  to  do  largely  with  Jew- 
ish law  and  custom,  about  which  he  had  very  little  knowl- 
edge, and  he  therefore  suggested  that  Paul  should  consent 
to  be  tried  in  Jerusalem.  But  Paul  knew  the  temper  of 
the  Jews,  and  was  well  aware  that  he  could  not  expect 
justice  at  their  hands,  and  so  he  refused  to  go,  as  he  had  a 

1  So,  e.g.,  Weiss :  Einleitung  in  das  Neue   Testament,  S.  249  sq.    (Eng. 
Trans.,  I.  p.  326).    Clemen  (Chronologic  de.r  paulinischen  Briefe,  S.  249  s^.J 
puts  the  composition  of  Colossians  and  Philemon  into  the  Cajsarean  imprisuu- 
ment,  but  assigns  Ephesians  to  a  later  author. 

2  Acts  xxiv.  27.  3  Acts  xxv.  1  sq. 

2A 


354  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

perfect  right  to  do.1  Why  he  should  have  appealed  to 
Caesar  in  this  connection,  as  he  is  reported  to  have  clone, 
is  not  altogether  clear.  His  Roman  citizenship  gave  him 
the  right  to  be  tried  in  Caesarea  at  the  bar  of  the  imperial 
procurator,  and  it  was  therefore  not  necessary  for  him  to 
appeal  to  the  emperor  in  order  to  escape  a  trial  in  Jerusa- 
lem. It  is  evident  that  he  had  good  reason  to  fear  that 
the  case  would  go  against  him  in  Festus'  court,  and  it  may 
be  that  he  saw  that  his  unwillingness  to  be  judged  by  his 
own  countrymen  had  led  the  latter  to  think  him  guilty. 
The  character  of  Festus,  as  portrayed  by  Josephus,2  for- 
bids the  assumption  that  he  would  have  condemned  Paul 
merely  for  the  sake  of  pleasing  the  Jews  and  without  regard 
to  the  evidence.  Paul's  appeal  to  Caesar,  therefore,  is  a  proof 
that  his  enemies  had  a  strong  case  against  him  and  that 
his  innocence  was  by  no  means  so  apparent  as  the  words  of 
Agrippa,  recorded  in  Acts  xxvi.  32,  would  seem  to  indicate.3 
The  appeal,  which  Festus  was  bound  to  entertain,4  re- 

i  Acts  xxv.  10.  2  Josephus :  Ant.  XX.  8 ;  B.  J.  II.  14. 

8  It  has  been  frequently  claimed  that  the  favorable  treatment  which  Paul 
received  from  the  authorities  in  Csesarea,  and  the  declaration  of  his  innocence 
to  which  Lysias,  Agrippa,  and  possibly  Festus  also  gave  utterance,  show  that 
there  was  nothing  in  the  case  against  him,  and  point  to  his  final  acquittal  and 
release.  But  Paul  would  hardly  have  appealed  to  Caesar,  with  all  the  expense, 
and  trouble,  and  delay  which  such  an  appeal  involved,  so  long  as  he  had  a 
reasonable  prospect  of  securing  an  acquittal  at  the  bar  of  Festus.  It  is  absurd 
to  suppose  that  he  appealed  because  he  wanted  to  visit  Rome,  as  has  been  sug- 
gested by  some  scholars  (cf.  Wieseler,  I.e.  S>.  383),  for  had  he  been  released  he 
could  have  gone  thither  as  a  free  man  whenever  he  wished  to.  That  he  did 
not  appeal  under  Felix  shows  that  he  was  in  less  danger  while  he  was  procu- 
rator. But  as  Festus  was  a  much  better  man  and  a  more  honest  official  than 
Felix,  it  looks  as  if  it  were  Felix's  hope  of  receiving  a  bribe  from  Paul  which 
led  him  to  treat  Paul  with  leniency.  It  is  not  impossible  that  the  alternative 
of  Paul's  protracted  imprisonment  under  Felix  was  not  his  release,  but  his 
conviction,  and  that  if  Felix  had  not  hoped  to  receive  a  bribe  he  would  have 
passed  sentence  upon  him  long  before  he  was  succeeded  by  Festus.  It  would 
seem  then  that  Paul  appealed  under  Festus,  because  the  latter's  reputation 
for  honesty,  and  his  prompt  attention  to  his  case,  led  him  to  see  that  he  could 
hope  for  no  favors  from  him,  and  as  the  witnesses  against  him  in  Caesarea 
were  many  and  zealous,  his  chances  of  an  acquittal  would  be  better  at  a  dis- 
tant court  whither  they  might  not  take  the  trouble  to  pursue  him.  Whatever 
Festus'  attitude  toward  Paul  after  his  consultation  with  Agrippa,  there  can 
at  any  rate  be  no  doubt  that  when  Paul  appealed  to  Caesar  he  had  reason  to 
think  that  the  evidence  against  him  was  so  strong  that  his  trial  before  Festus 
would  result  in  his  condemnation. 

4  Notorious  robbers,  pirates,  and  plotters  against  the  government  might  be 
refused  the  right  of  appeal  if  their  guilt  was  perfectly  clear,  but  in  ordinary 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  355 

moved  Paul's  case  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  procurator 
and  made  it  necessary  for  the  latter  to  send  him  to  Rome  at 
the  earliest  opportunity.  But  before  the  time  of  his  de- 
parture arrived,  Herod  Agrippa  II.1  came  to  Csesarea  with 
his  sister  Bernice  to  pay  his  respects  to  the  new  procurator, 
and  Festus  improved  the  occasion  to  get  Agrippa's  opinion 
of  Paul  and  his  advice  as  to  how  the  latter's  alleged  offence 
should  be  described  to  the  emperor.2  Agrippa  expressed  a 
desire  to  hear  Paul  for  himself,  and  the  result  was  that  the 
apostle  was  afforded  a  welcome  opportunity  to  give  an  ac- 
count of  himself  and  of  his  work,  not  in  the  presence  of 
Agrippa  and  Bernice  merely,  but  also  of  the  procurator  and 
many  other  officials  of  high  rank.3  He  seems  to  have  im- 

cases  the  right  could  be  denied  to  no  Roman  citizen.  There  was  nothing  in 
Paul's  case  to  justify  Festus  in  refusing  him  the  common  privilege  which  his 
citizenship  guaranteed  him,  as  he  and  his  council  clearly  saw  (Acts  xxv.  12). 

1  Son  of  Herod  Agrippa  L,  whose  death  is  recorded  in  Acts  xii.  23.    Herod 
Agrippa  II.  came  to  the  throne  in  48,  and  lived  until  100  A.D. 

2  Acts  xxv.  13  sq. 

3  Acts  xxv.  23-xxvi.  29.    The  account  of  Paul's  arraignment  before  Festus 
and  of  his  appearance  before  Agrippa,  given  in  Acts  xxv.  and  xxvi.  is  more 
vivid  and  less  open  to  criticism  than  the  preceding  context.    The  story  of  his 
conversion  recorded  in  chap.  xxvi.  is  much  more  compact  and  simple  than  in 
chaps,  ix.  and  xxii.,  and  at  the  same  time  reproduces  his  own  ultimate  impres- 
sion of  the  event  with  greater  accuracy  than  the  other  accounts,  when  it  repre- 
sents him  as  receiving  his  apostolic  call  at  the  time  of  his  vision  instead  of 
later  through  the  agency  of  another  (cf.  Gal.  i.  16,  and  see  Weudt,  in  Meyer's 
Commentary  on  Acts,  7th  edition,  S.  217  sq.).    It  is  therefore  probable  that 
the  address  was  found  by  the  author  in  his  sources,  and  that  it  constituted 
the  original  upon  which  the  other  accounts  were  built.    But  it  is  clear  that 
he  made  additions  to  it  as  to  so  many  of  the  speeches  recorded  by  him.    Thus 
vs.  20  is  in  line  with  the  idea,  which  appears  so  frequently  in  Acts,  that  after 
his  conversion  Paul  did  missionary  work  in  Jerusalem  and  Judea.    Verse  8  also 
looks  like  an  addition ;  and  in  the  light  of  Acts  xiii.  38,  it  is  not  impossible 
that  the  reference  to  the  remission  of  sins  in  vs.  18  is  Luke's  and  not  Paul's. 
See  also  p.  120,  above. 

It  is  held  by  some  scholars,  by  Wendt  among  others,  that  chaps,  xxv.  and 
xxvi.  were  taken  from  the  work  of  the  eyewitness,  from  which  chaps,  xxvii. 
and  xxviii.  also  came.  But  I  am  unable  to  discover  any  grounds  for  such  an 
assumption.  The  man  who  wrote  xxvii.  1-xxviii.  16,  and  the  other  "we" 
passages  was  interested  even  in  the  little  things  which  concerned  Paul,  and  it 
cannot  be  supposed  that  if  he  was  with  Paul  during  his  Caesarean  imprison- 
ment, he  would  have  written  so  impersonal  and  official  an  account  as  appears  in 
chaps,  xxv.  and  xxvi.  It  is  to  be  noticed,  moreover,  that  xxvii.  1  has  no  direct 
connection  with  what  immediately  precedes.  There  is  a  marked  gap  between 
xxvi.  32  and  xxvii.  1,  and  yet  it  can  hardly  be  supposed  that  the  author  who 
reproduced  the  "  we "  passage  in  such  detail  in  chaps,  xxvii.  and  xxviii., 
would  have  omitted  that  which  must  have  connected  chaps,  xxvi.  and  xxvii. 
if  they  constituted  originally  a  part  of  one  whole.  There  seems  to  be  another 
indication  here  that  the  "  we  "  source  was  of  a  fragmentary  character. 


356  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

pressed  his  listeners  as  a  man  of  culture  who  had  become 
unbalanced  upon  the  subject  of  religion  and  was  pursuing  a 
foolish  and  fanatical  course,  but  was  neither  a  criminal  nor 
a  vicious  character.  Whether  Festus  shared  the  opinion  as 
to  Paul's  innocence,  to  which  Agrippa  is  represented  as 
giving  explicit  utterance,  we  do  not  know,1  but  at  any 
rate  Paul  had  appealed  to  Csesar  and  to  Caesar  he  must  go. 
Paul's  Csesarean  imprisonment,  which  has  been  engaging 
our  attention,  has  been  commonly  employed  as  a  starting- 
point  from  which  to  reckon  the  chronology  of  a  large  part 
of  the  apostle's  life.  It  is  clear  that  he  was  sent  from  Csesarea 
to  Rome  soon  after  the  accession  of  Festus.2  If  the  date  of 
the  latter  event  therefore  can  be  determined,  the  time  of  his 
imprisonment  can  be  fixed  with  a  good  deal  of  exactness, 
and  calculations  can  be  based  upon  it  respecting  preceding 
as  well  as  subsequent  events.  Unfortunately,  the  desired 
date  is  not  directly  given  in  any  of  our  sources,  and  can  be 
ascertained  only  by  a  combination  of  various  more  or  less 
uncertain  references.  The  prevailing  opinion  is  that  Fes- 
tus became  procurator  in  the  year  60.3  But  there  is  good 
ground,  it  seems  to  me,  for  revising  that  opinion  and  for 
pushing  the  date  of  his  accession  back  to  the  year  55. 
Such  a  revision  involves  so  considerable  a  change  in  the 
generally  accepted  chronology  of  Paul's  life,  that  the  mat- 

1  Luke  says  indefinitely  in  xxvi.  31,  that  "  they  spake  one  to  another,  say- 
ing, This  man  doeth  nothing  worthy  of  death  or  of  bonds  " ;  and  more  ex- 
plicitly in  vs.  32,  that  "Agrippa  said  unto  Festus,  This  man  might  have  been 
set  at  liberty,  if  he  had  not  appealed  unto  Caesar."  But  though  Paul's  address 
may  have  convinced  Agrippa  and  others,  including  even  Festus,  that  he  had 
committed  no  crime,  it  did  not  serve  to  prove  that  he  was  not  a  dangerous 
character,  and  that  he  would  not  stir  up  trouble  in  the  future  as  he  had  in  the 
past.    It  was  not  enough  for  Paul  to  prove  that  his  intentions  were  good  and 
that  there  was  no  valid  reason  why  his  teaching  should  create  an  excitement 
and  lead  to  riots  wherever  he  went.    The  fact  that  he  was  the  innocent  cause 
of  such  riots  was  enough  to  condemn  him  in  the  eyes  of  the  Roman  state,  and 
Festus,  as  a  faithful  Roman  official,  could  hardly  have  set  him  at  liberty  on 
the  strength  of  his  address  and  of  Agrippa's  opinion. 

2  Cf.  Acts  xxv.  1,  6  sq.,  13  sq.,  23,  xxvi.  32,  xxvii.  1. 

8  Many  say  59,  some  61.  For  a  very  clear  and  concise  presentation  and 
defence  of  the  prevailing  view,  see  Schiirer:  I.e.  I.  S.  483  sq.  (Eng.  Trans., 
Div.  I.  Vol.  II.  p.  182  sq.).  For  a  fuller  treatment  of  the  subject  see  especially 
Wieseler :  Chronologie  d.  ap.  Zeitalters,  S.  60  sq.  Schiirer,  who  decides  for  the 
year  60,  closes  his  careful  discussion  of  the  subject  with  the  words :  "It  is  most 
correct  to  say,  with  Wurm, '  At  the  earliest  58,  at  the  latest  61,  probably  60,'  " 


THE  WORK  OF  PAUL  357 

ter  merits  careful  consideration.1  Josephus  records  that 
Festus'  predecessor  Felix  was  accused  before  Nero  by 
prominent  Jews  of  Csesarea,  and  that  he  escaped  punish- 
ment only  because  of  the  influence  of  his  brother  Pallas, 
who  at  that  time  enjoyed  the  especial  friendship  of  the 
emperor.2  But  Tacitus  reports  that  Pallas  fell  into  dis- 
favor with  Nero  and  was  relieved  of  his  offices  before  the 
end  of  the  year  55 ; 3  and  the  historian's  account  of  Nero's 
attitude  toward  Pallas  and  his  silence  touching  any  recon- 
ciliation between  them,  to  say  nothing  of  the  emperor's 
treatment  of  Agrippina,  with  whose  fortunes  those  of 
Pallas  were  so  intimately  bound  up,  make  it  very  difficult 
to  believe  that  the  latter  again  acquired  influence  at  court. 
That  Pallas  was  acquitted  of  the  crime  of  conspiracy  a  few 
months  after  his  dismissal  from  office  4  cannot  be  urged  as 
a  proof  that  he  subsequently  regained  Nero's  favor,  for  he 
had  expressly  stipulated  at  the  time  of  his  dismissal  that 
he  should  not  be  questioned  for  any  part  of  his  past  con- 
duct,5 and  Tacitus  remarks  that  his  "  acquittal  was  not  so 
gratifying  [evidently  meaning  to  the  emperor]  as  his  arro- 
gance was  offensive."6  But  the  accusation  from  which 
Felix  was  relieved  by  the  good  offices  of  his  brother  was 
made  after  his  departure  from  Palestine  and  after  the 
accession  of  his  successor  Festus.7  It  seems  therefore 
that  the  latter  must  have  become  procurator  in  55 ;  for 
before  the  end  of  that  year  Pallas  was  in  disgrace,  while 
Nero  ascended  the  throne  too  late  in  the  previous  year 
(Oct.  13)  to  send  Festus  to  Palestine  before  the  early  fall, 
when  Paul  was  despatched  to  Rome.8 

Against  this  opinion  it  has  been  urged  that  the  words 
addressed  by  Paul  to  Felix,  two  years  before  the  close  of 
the  latter's  term  of  office  ("  Forasmuch  as  I  know  that 
thou  hast  been  for  many  years  a  judge  unto  this  nation  "  9) 
make  so  early  a  date  impossible.  But  that  is  a  decided 

1  The  substance  of  the  following  discussion  of  the  date  of  Paul's  Caesarean 
imprisonment  has  been  already  printed  in  the  American  Journal  of  Theology 
for  January,  1897,  p.  145  sq. 

2  Ant.  XX.  8,  9.  6  Ann.  XIII.  14.  8  Cf .  Acts  xxvii.  9. 
8  Ann.  XIII.  14.                     «  Ann.  XIII.  23.                     *  Acts  xxiv.  10. 

4  Ann.  XIII.  23.  '  Josephus :  Ant.  XX.  8,  9. 


358  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

mistake,  for  even  though  Cumauus  may  not  have  been 
succeeded  by  Felix  until  52,  as  Tacitus  and  Josephus 
seem  to  imply,1  Tacitus  expressly  says  that  Felix  had 
already  been  for  a  long  time  governor  of  Judea,  includ- 
ing Samaria,  while  Cumanus  was  governor  of  Galilee.2 
Josephus,  to  be  sure,  says  nothing  of  such  a  division  of  the 
province,  but  his  account  at  this  point  is  so  improbable  in 
many  of  its  features  and  contains  so  many  palpable  inac- 
curacies, that  we  can  hardly  hesitate  to  follow  Mommsen 
in  preferring  the  authority  of  Tacitus  to  that  of  Josephus.3 
Paul's  words  therefore  might  have  been  uttered  in  53, 
when,  if  our  view  be  correct,  he  was  taken  a  prisoner  to 
Csesarea,  as  well  as  in  58  or  any  other  year.  Josephus'  ap- 
parent ignorance  touching  Felix's  presence  and  authority 
in  Palestine  before  the  year  52  probably  explains  the 
fact  that  he  relates  most  of  the  deeds  which  he  ascribes  to 
Felix,  including  his  victory  over  the  Egyptian  referred  to  in 
Acts  xxi.  38,  in  connection  with  the  reign  of  Nero.4  At 
any  rate,  in  view  of  that  ignorance,  it  is  clear  that  no  valid 
argument  against  the  earlier  date  for  Paul's  arrest  can  be 
drawn  from  the  fact  that  such  events  are  connected  by 
Josephus  with  Nero's  reign. 

In  confirmation  of  the  early  date  I  have  been  maintaining 
for  the  accession  of  Festus  and  the  arrest  and  imprisonment 
of  Paul  may  be  urged,  on  the  one  hand,  the  traditional  resi- 
dence of  the  apostle  Peter  in  Rome,  which  seems  to  require 
an  earlier  date  for  Paul's  death  than  that  commonly  adopted,5 
and  on  the  other  hand  the  chronology  of  the  latter's  mis- 
sionary career.  Reasons  have  already  been  given  for  think- 
ing that  the  apostolic  council  probably  took  place  in  the 
year  45  instead  of  50  or  51,  as  is  commonly  assumed.6  It  is 
true  that  our  data  for  determining  the  length  of  Paul's  mis- 
sionary journeys  are  few  and  uncertain,  but  the  generally 
accepted  calculations  are  probably  approximately  correct. 

i  Ann.  XII.  54 ;  Ant.  XX.  7,  1.  2  Ann.  XII.  54. 

3  Mommsen :  Romische  Geschichte,  3te  Auflage,  V.  S.  525  sq.  Cf .  also 
Blass:  Ada  apostolorum,  p.  21,  and  Ramsay:  St.  Paul,  the  Traveller  and  the 
Roman  Citizen,  p.  313. 

4Cf.  Josephns:  Ant.  XX.  8;  B.  J.  II.  13. 

*  See  below,  p.  592  sq.  «  See  above,  p.  172. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  359 

They  make  the  interval  between  the  apostolic  council  and 
the  arrest  of  Paul  in  Jerusalem  about  seven  or  eight  years, 
and  if  the  former  event  therefore  be  fixed  at  about  45,  the 
latter  can  hardly  be  put  much  later  than  53.1  It  may  fairly 
be  assumed  then  on  the  grounds  given  above,  which  find  con- 
firmation in  the  considerations  just  mentioned,  that  Paul's 
imprisonment  in  Csesarea,  which  followed  immediately  upon 
his  arrest  in  Jerusalem,  began  in  the  early  summer  of  53  (he 
was  arrested  soon  after  Pentecost)  and  continued  until  the 
late  summer  or  early  fall  of  55,  when  he  sailed  for  Rome.2 
The  account  of  Paul's  journey  from  Csesarea  to  Rome 
is  taken  from  the  "we"  source,  and  is  exceedingly  accurate 
and  without  doubt  entirely  trustworthy  from  beginning  to 
end.3  Late  in  the  summer  or  early  in  the  fall 4  he  left 

J  Assuming,  as  is  very  likely,  that  Paul  left  Antioch  upon  his  second  mission- 
dry  journey  (Acts  xv.  40)  in  the  spring  of  46,  he  must  have  reached  Philippi 
before  the  end  of  the  fall,  for  his  journey  through  Asia  Minor  was  evidently 
a  rapid  one,  and  he  stopped  nowhere  for  any  length  of  time  (see  above,  p.  235). 
The  length  of  his  stay  in  Macedonia  is  uncertain,  but  a  year  would  probably 
cover  it,  so  that  he  may  have  reached  Corinth  in  the  autumn  of  47.  Here  he 
remained  a  year  and  a  half  according  to  Acts  xviii.  11,  and  at  the  opening  ot 
navigation  iu  the  spring  of  49  he  very  likely  sailed  at  once  for  Syria  (Acts 
xviii.  18).  He  seems  to  have  tarried  only  a  short  time  in  the  East,  and  to 
have  hastened  back  to  Ephesus  without  stopping  to  do  evangelistic  work 
on  the  way  (xviii.  21  sq.,  xix.  1).  It  is  therefore  probable  that  he  reached 
Ephesus  by  the  middle  of  the  year  49.  From  Acts  xix.  8, 10,  and  22,  it  appears 
that  his  residence  in  Ephesus  lasted  something  over  two  and  a  quarter  years, 
and  in  Acts  xx.  31,  the  whole  duration  of  it  is  given  in  round  numbers  as  three 
years.  We  conclude  from  1  Cor.  xvi.  8,  combined  with  xvi.  1  and  2  Cor.  ix.  2, 
that  he  left  Ephesus  for  the  last  time  in  the  spring,  so  that  he  was  probably 
there  from  the  summer  of  49  to  the  spring  of  52.  He  reached  Corinth  appar- 
ently toward  the  close  of  the  same  year  (see  above,  p.  324),  and  after  a  stay  of 
three  months  there,  left  in  the  spring  for  Jerusalem  (Acts  xx.  4,  6),  where  he 
arrived  in  time  for  Pentecost  in  the  year  53.  These  calculations  are  of  course 
for  the  most  part  only  approximate ;  but  they  can  hardly  be  more  than  a  year 
out  of  the  way,  and  they  thus  go  to  confirm,  in  a  general  way,  the  earlier  date 
for  Paul's  imprisonment. 

2  The  earlier  date  for  Festus'  accession  and  Paul's  imprisonment  has  been 
maintained  also  by  Kelluer  in  the  Zeitschrift  fur  kath.  Theologie,  1888, 
S.  630  sq.,  and  in  other  articles ;  by  Weber  in  his  Kritische  Geschichte  der  Exe- 
gese  des  Men  Kapitels  des  Romerbriefes,  1889,  S.  177  sq. ;  and  more  recently  by 
O.  Holtzmann  in  his  Neutestamentliche  Zeitgeschichte,  S.  128  sq.,  and  by  Blass, 
I.e.  S.  21  sq.  Blass  puts  the  arrest  of  Paul  at  Jerusalem  in  the  year  54. 

8  On  Paul's  voyage  to  Rome  see  especially  James  Smith's  Voyage  and  Ship- 
wreck of  St.  Paul,  and  compare  Ramsay :  St.  Paul,  the  Traveller  and  the 
Roman  Citizen,  p.  314  sq. 

4  They  were  at  Crete  in  October  according  to  Acts  xxvii.  9,  and  they  must 
have  been  already  some  weeks  on  the  voyage.  The  fast  referred  to  in  that 
passage  is  the  great  fast  of  the  day  of  atonement,  which  fell  on  the  tenth 


360  THE   APOSTOLIC    AGE 

Caesarea,  in  charge  of  a  centurion  named  Julius,  who  was 
conducting  a  body  of  prisoners  to  Rome.  He  was  accom- 
panied by  Aristarchus  of  Thessalonica1  and  the  unnamed 
author  of  the  account  of  the  voyage.  They  very  likely 
went  in  the  capacity  of  Paul's  personal  attendants  or 
slaves,  for  otherwise  such  intimate  association  as  they 
seem  to  have  had  with  him  throughout  the  journey  would 
hardly  have  been  possible.2  Paul  seems  to  have  appeared 
in  Csesarea  and  in  Rome  as  a  man  of  higli  social  rank,  and 
he  was  treated  as  such  by  the  authorities.3  It  was  there- 
fore entirely  natural  that  he  should  have  a  couple  of  attend- 
ants and  that  they  should  be  allowed  to  accompany  him 
to  Rome.4  The  voyage  from  Caesarea  was  made  by  ship, 
and  the  winds  proved  exceedingly  unpropitious,  so  that 
instead  of  reaching  Rome  before  the  close  of  navigation 
in  the  fall,  they  were  shipwrecked  on  the  island  of  Malta, 
and  forced  to  remain  there  three  months.  Paul's  courage, 
wisdom,  and  presence  of  mind  were  very  conspicuous  in  all 
the  difficulties  and  dangers  of  the  voyage  and  made  a  great 
impression  upon  the  centurion  and  all  the  ship's  company. 
He  showed  himself  equal  to  the  emergency  in  this  case  as 
in  every  other,  and  we  could  ill  spare  the  picture  of  his 
calm  and  confident  demeanor  in  the  midst  of  the  panic- 

of  the  month  Tisri,  the  seventh  month  of  the  Jewish  year,  corresponding 
approximately  to  our  October. 

1  Aristarchus  was  with  Paul  in  Ephesus,  according  to  Acts  xix.  29,  and 
accompanied  him  upon  his  final  journey  to  Jerusalem,  Acts  xx.  4.    He  also 
remained  with  him  for  some  time  in  Rome  (Col.  iv.  10;  Philemon  24). 

2  See  Ramsay:  I.e.  p.  315  sq. 

8  Notice  the  consideration  shown  him  by  the  centurion  at  Sidon,  where  he 
was  allowed  to  visit  his  friends,  according  to  Acts  xxvii.  3. 

4  Ramsay  (I.e.  p.  310  sq.)  has  an  interesting  note  upon  the  finances  of  the 
trial,  in  which  he  suggests  that  Paul  had  recently  fallen  heir  to  considerable  prop- 
erty, and  that  he  was  thus  in  a  position  to  defray  easily  the  large  expenses  in- 
volved in  his  trial  and  protracted  imprisonment.  It  is  possible  that  this  was 
the  case,  but  not  only  at  an  earlier  day  in  Macedonia  and  Achaia,  but  also 
later  in  Rome,  he  received  gifts  from  the  church  of  Philippi  and  found  them 
very  welcome  (Phil.  iv.  10  sq.).  It  hardly  looks,  therefore,  as  if  he  were  a 
man  of  independent  wealth  at  any  time.  That  he  had  enough  property  to  raise 
him  above  the  level  of  the  ordinary  criminal,  and  to  insure  him  a  measure  of 
respect  from  the  authorities,  is  very  likely,  but  it  is  probable  that  Felix  was 
counting  upon  the  devotion  of  Paul's  disciples  and  not  upon  the  apostle's  purse 
alone  when  he  tried  to  secure  a  bribe  for  his  release  (Acts  xxiv.  26).  and  that 
frequently  durin«r  his  imprisonment  Paul  had  the  assistance  as  well  as  the 
sympathy  of  his  Christian  brethren. 


THE  WORK   OF   PAUL  361 

stricken  prisoners  and  crew.  Though  only  a  prisoner,  he 
was  the  commanding  figure  in  the  vessel,  and  he  made  his 
influence  felt.  The  secret  of  his  marvellous  power  and 
success  as  a  missionary  of  Christ  lay  in  no  small  measure 
in  his  superiority  to  circumstances  so  clearly  manifested 
in  such  scenes  as  these,  and  in  the  dominating  forcefulness 
of  his  personality,  which  was  felt  by  high  as  well  as  low, 
by  governors  and  kings  as  well  as  by  soldiers  and  sailors. 
In  Malta  Paul  is  reported  to  have  performed  many  mira- 
cles l  and  to  have  gained  the  confidence  and  affection  of  the 
inhabitants,  but  nothing  is  said  about  his  preaching  the 
Gospel  and  securing  converts  to  the  Christian  faith.  At 
the  opening  of  navigation  in  the  spring  the  voyage  was 
resumed  in  another  ship,  and  Puteoli  was  reached  in  good 
time  and  without  farther  mishap.  After  a  week's  stay 
there,  during  which  Paul  enjoyed  the  association  of  Chris- 
tian disciples  residing  in  the  place,  the  soldiers  with  their 
prisoners  made  their  way  to  Rome  by  land.  The  Roman 
Christians  had  received  news  of  Paul's  coming,  probably 
from  the  brethren  at  Puteoli,  and  a  number  of  them  met 
him  at  the  Forum  of  Appius,  more-  than  forty-five  miles 
from  the  city  on  the  Via  Appia,  and  others  at  the  Three 
Taverns,  some  twelve  or  thirteen  miles  nearer.2  They 
gave  him  a  warm  welcome  and  Paul  was  greatly  cheered 
and  encouraged  by  it.  It  must  have  meant  much  to  him, 
arriving  a  prisoner  in  bonds,  to  be  greeted  in  such  a  way. 
The  Roman  church  was  not  of  his  own  planting  and  he 
himself  was  a  stranger  to  most  of  its  members,  and  he 
might  well  have  entertained  doubts  as  to  whether  they 
would  care  to  show  him  any  particular  attention,  or  would 
dare  to  do  it,  under  existing  circumstances,  even  if  they 
wished  to.  Their  friendliness  and  sympathy  thus  promptly 
expressed,  and  their  evident  disregard  of  the  possible  con- 

1  The  attempt  to  cut  out  vss.  3-6  and  7-10  of  chap,  xxviii.  as  interpolations 
is  quite  unwarranted.    Paul  himself  testifies  in  2  Cor.  xii.  12  to  his  own  per- 
formance of  signs  and  wonders,  and  the  record  of  such  events  in  accounts  of 
his  life  and  work  is  in  itself  no  sufficient  indication  of  late  date.    The  age  with 
which  we  are  dealing  was  in  an  eminent  sense  a  supernatural  age,  and  the  be- 
lief in  miracles  was  universal  among  the  disciples. 

2  Acts  xxviii.  15. 


362  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGfl 

sequences  of  compromising  themselves  in  the  eyes  of  the 
authorities,  must  have  affected  him  deeply.  He  felt  him- 
self among  friends,  even  though  a  prisoner  in  a  strange  city, 
and  he  "  thanked  God  and  took  courage."  1 

The  "  we  "  source  apparently  closes  just  at  this  point, 
though  it  may  be  that  a  part  of  that  which  follows  was 
taken  from  it.  At  any  rate,  it  is  not  at  all  impossible  that 
Paul  had  a  conference  with  some  of  the  leading  Jews  of 
the  city  as  recorded  in  vss.  17-20,  in  the  hope  that  lie 
might  succeed  in  disposing  them  favorably  toward  him, 
or  might  at  least  disarm  their  hostility,  which  of  course 
would  work  to  his  decided  disadvantage  in  his  approach- 
ing trial.  The  words  uttered  by  the  Jews,  according  to 
vs.  22,  convey  the  impression  that  they  had  not  themselves 
come  in  contact  with  Christianity,  but  knew  it  only  by 
hearsay.  Such  an  impression,  however,  is  hardly  in  accord 
with  the  actual  facts.  There  were  certainly  Jewish  Chris- 
tians in  the  church  of  Rome  at  the  time  Paul  wrote  his 
epistle,  and  it  is  altogether  likely  that  the  disturbances 
which  led  to  the  expulsion  of  some  of  the  Jews  from  the 
city  during  the  reign  of  Claudius  were  due  to  the  preaching 
of  Christ  in  the  synagogue.2  It  cannot  be  denied,  more- 
over, that  the  words  attributed  to  Paul  in  vss.  25-28  seem 
on  their  face  a  little  out  of  harmony  with  the  situation 
and  with  the  immediate  context;  for  while  vss.  17-20  rep- 
resent him  as  summoning  the  leaders  of  the  Jews  in  order 
to  disarm  their  prejudice  against  him,  vss.  23-28  picture 
him  as  preaching  the  Gospel  to  them,  and  then  pronouncing 
condemnation  upon  them  for  their  refusal  to  believe,  in 

1  Acts  xxviii.  16. 

2  Cf .  Acts  xviii.  2,  and  Suetonius :  Claudius,  25.    Suetonius  says  that  Clau- 
dius expelled  the  Jews  from  Rome  because  they  were  making  disturbances  at 
the  instigation  of  a  certain  Chrestus  (Judssos  impulsore  Chresto  assidue  tu- 
multuantes  Roma  expulit).    The  identification  of  Chrestus  with  Christ  is  not 
certain,  but  is  very  probable,  and  has  been  adopted  by  most  scholars. 

Dion  Cassius  (LX.  6),  referring  probably  to  the  same  event,  says  that 
Claudius  did  not  expel  the  Jews  from  the  city,  as  there  were  too  many  of 
them,  but  forbade  them  to  hold  meetings.  Very  likely  an  edict  of  expulsion 
was  passed  and  some  of  the  Jews,  including  Aquila  and  Priscilla  (Acts 
xviii.  2),  left  the  city;  but  the  Jewish  colony  was  so  large  that  it  was  found 
impracticable  to  carry  out  the  edict,  and  so  a  prohibition  of  their  religions 
services  was  substituted.  The  date  of  the  edict  is  unknown  to  us,  and  no 
chronological  conclusions  can  be  drawn  from  it. 


THE    WORK   OF   PAUL 

words  calculated  only  to  enrage  and  embitter  them.  So 
too  the  utterance  recorded  in  vs.  28  ("  Be  it  therefore 
known  unto  you  that  this  salvation  of  God  hath  been  sent 
unto  the  Gentiles;  they  also  will  hear")  sounds  like  an 
anachronism  at  this  time  and  place.  When  Paul  arrived 
in  Rome,  there  was  already  a  Christian  church  there  com- 
posed largely  of  Gentiles,  and  it  was  undoubtedly  among 
them  that  he  had  most  of  his  friends,  and  by  them  that  he 
was  welcomed  most  warmly.  It  is  a  little  strange  under 
such  circumstances  that  he  should  say  to  the  Jews  of  the 
city  that  their  refusal  to  believe  would  result  in  the  salva- 
tion of  the  heathen.  That  he  actually  did  come  in  contact 
with  unconverted  Jews  in  Rome,  and  that  he  even  endeav- 
ored to  win  them  over  to  the  Christian  faith,  need  not  be 
doubted,  but  the  particular  form  which  his  intercourse  with 
them  takes  in  the  account  of  Acts  was  possibly  due  to  the 
author,  who  perhaps  represented  Raul  as  having  such  an 
interview  as  is  described  in  order  to  emphasize  at  the  very 
close  of  his  book  the  fact  upon  which  he  had  laid  frequent 
stress,  that  Paul  was  not  to  blame  for  the  non-conversion  of 
the  Jews,  and  for  the  predominantly  Gentile  character  of 
the  church,  but  that  the  Jews  themselves  were  to  blame  for 
it ;  that  he  had  offered  the  Gospel  to  the  Jews  of  Rome  be- 
fore turning  to  the  Gentiles,  just  as  he  had  in  nearly  all  the 
cities  which  he  visited ;  that  everything  possible  had  been 
done  to  induce  them  to  accept  Christianity,  but  that  they 
had  persistently  refused,  and  that,  too,  in  spite  of  the  fact 
that  Christianity  was  the  true  form  of  Judaism  which  all 
their  prophets  had  been  foretelling,  and  to  which  all  their 
past  had  been  leading  up.  This  fact,  which  thus  received 
renewed  and  final  emphasis,  had  also  an  apologetic  signifi- 
cance. It  was  calculated  to  explain  and,  at  the  same  time, 
to  show  the  injustice  of  the  Jews'  enmity  for  the  Christians, 
which  was  undoubtedly  very  marked  at  the  time  our  author 
wrote,  and  which  contributed  not  a  little  to  the  hostile 
treatment  accorded  the  church  by  the  Roman  authorities. 


364  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE 


12.  PAUL  IN  ROME 

The  Book  of  Acts  closes  with  the  statement  that  Paul 
"  abode  two  whole  years  in  his  own  hired  dwelling,  and 
received  all  that  went  in  unto  him,  preaching  the  kingdom 
of  God,  and  teaching  the  things  concerning  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  with  all  boldness,  none  forbidding  him." 1  That  Paul 
during  the  two  years  thus  described  actually  did  enjoy 
a  large  measure  of  freedom  in  communicating  with  his 
friends  and  with  any  others  who  were  interested  enough  to 
visit  him,  and  that  he  continued  his  activity  as  a  preacher 
of  the  Gospel  to  those  about  him  and  retained  his  interest 
in  his  own  churches  and  in  the  progress  of  Christianity  in 
the  world  at  large,  is  evidenced  by  four  epistles  from  his 
pen,  all  of  which  were  apparently  written  at  this  time  :  the 
epistles  to  Philemon,  to  the  Colossians,  to  the  Ephesians, 
and  to  the  Philippians.  That  the  last-named  was  written 
in  Rome,  while  Paul  was  a  prisoner  there,  is  commonly 
taken  for  granted.2  The  expectation  of  death  which 
haunted  the  imprisoned  apostle  while  he  wrote  ; 3  the  large 
and  active  circle  of  Christian  disciples  with  which  he  was 
surrounded,  and  the  various  tendencies  exhibited  among 
them ; 4  the  reference  to  the  praetorian  guard,5  and  the 
greetings  from  the  members  of  Csesar's  household,6  —  all 
point  to  Rome. 

But  there  are  some  scholars  that  maintain  that  the  first 
three  of  the  epistles  mentioned  were  written  not  in  Rome, 
but  in  Csesarea  during  Paul's  imprisonment  there.7  It  is 
certain  that  the  three  cannot  be  separated  from  each  other. 
If  they  are  genuine  epistles  of  Paul,  they  must  have  been 
written  at  the  same  time  and  place.  But  for  the  opinion 
that  that  place  was  Rome  and  not  Csesarea  speaks  the  fact 

1  Acts  xxviii.  30,  31. 

2  The  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  is  put  into  the  Caesarean  imprisonment 
by  O.  Holtzmann :  Theologische  Litteraturzeilung,  1890,  Sp.  177,  and  by  Spitta : 
Die  Apostelgeschichte,  S.  281,  but  so  far  as  I  know  by  no  other  recent  scholars. 
Clemen,  who  divides  the  epistle  into  two,  puts  the  earlier  into  the  Caesarean 
imprisonment,  the  later  into  the  Roman  (Die  Chronologic  der  paulinischen 
Brief e,  S.  197). 

«  Phil.  i.  20  sq.,  ii.  17.  5  Phil.  i.  13.  7  See  above,  p.  363. 

<  Phil.  i.  12  sq.  «  Phil.  iv.  22. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  36f) 

that  while  Paul  was  in  Csesarea,  all  his  thoughts  were 
turned  toward  Rome,  and  it  is  exceedingly  unlikely  that 
he  would  plan  to  visit  Asia  Minor  again  in  case  of  his  re- 
lease, as  he  announces  his  intention  of  doing  in  Philemon 
22,  instead  of  carrying  out  his  long-cherished  purpose  to 
go  at  once  to  Rome.  But  that  he  actually  had  the  inten- 
tion, while  a  prisoner  in  the  latter  city,  to  return  East  if 
he  were  released,  is  proved  by  Phil.  i.  27  and  ii.  24.  More- 
over, it  should  be  observed  that  the  marked  resemblances 
that  exist  between  Colossians  and  Philippians  make  it 
exceedingly  difficult  to  separate  them  by  any  long  in- 
terval.1 In  view  of  these  considerations  there  can  be 
little  doubt  of  the  correctness  of  the  traditional  and  com- 
monly accepted  opinion  that  Colossians,  Ephesians,  and 
Philemon  were  written  during  Paul's  imprisonment  in 
Rome. 

Their  date  it  is  impossible  to  determine  more  exactly. 
On  the  ground,  on  the  one  hand,  of  resemblances  between 
Philippians  and  Romans  and,  on  the  other  hand,  of  the 
less  Pauline  style  and  of  the  more  highly  developed 
Christology  and  ecclesiology  of  Colossians  and  Ephesians, 
Lightfoot  has  maintained,  in  disagreement  with  the  great 
majority  of  scholars,  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  was 
written  before  the  other  three.2  But  the  resemblance  to 
Romans  has  no  weight ;  for  the  epistles  were  separated  at 
any  rate  by  an  interval  of  at  least  three  years,  and  the 
literary  style  of  Colossians  and  Ephesians  and  the  alleged 
doctrinal  difficulties  which  beset  them  cannot  be  accounted 
for  by  the  lapse  of  twelve  or  fifteen  months,  which  at  the 
very  most  intervened  between  them  and  the  Epistle  to 
the  Philippians.  On  the  other  hand,  the  fact  that  Timothy 
was  with  Paul  when  he  wrote  Philemon,  Colossians,  and 
Philippians,  but  that  the  last-named  epistle  announces  his 
impending  departure  for  the  East,  suggests  that  it  was  writ- 
ten later  than  the  others  ;  for  Timothy  was  certainly  in  the 
East  toward  the  close  of  Paul's  imprisonment,  as  appears 

1  Upon  these  resemblances,  see  especially  Von  Soden  in  the  Hand-Kom< 
mentar  zum  Neuen  Testament,  III.  1,  S.  14. 

2  See  his  Commentary  on  Philippians,  edition  of  1894,  p.  30  sq. 


366  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

from  2  Tim.  iv.  19.  The  tone  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Philip- 
pians  is  very  different  from  that  of  the  others.  Though 
Paul  hopes  to  be  released,  he  is  occupied  much  with  the 
thought  of  death,  and  evidently  realizes  that  it  may  be  im- 
minent ;  while  in  Colossians,  Ephesians,  and  Philemon 
there  is  no  reference  to  his  death,  and  he  seems  to  be 
looking  forward  to  a  protracted  period  of  activity  in 
Rome.1  It  may  fairly  be  assumed,  then,  that  the  common 
opinion  is  correct,  and  that  the  Epistle'  to  the  Philippians 
was  written  later  than  the  other  three.  But  how  long 
an  interval  separated  it  from  them,  we  have  no  means  of 
determining. 

The  first  of  the  epistles  of  the  captivity  was  addressed 
to  a  church  which  Paul  had  neither  founded  nor  visited,2 
—  the  church  of  Colossse  in  southwestern  Phrygia.  But 
the  Colossians  apparently  owed  their  Christianity  to  one 
of  Paul's  own  disciples,  a  man  named  Epaphras;3  and 
he  therefore  felt  no  hesitation  in  treating  them  as  his 
own  converts  and  writing  them  an  epistle.  The  contrast 
between  Paul's  attitude  toward  the  Colossians  and  the 
Romans  is  noticeable.  He  does  not  think  it  necessary  to 
apologize  for  addressing  the  former  as  he  did  in  the  case 
of  the  latter.  Though  not  his  own  converts,  they  are  the 
converts  of  one  of  his  disciples  and  thus  they  owe  their 
Christianity  indirectly  if  not  directly  to  him,  and  consider 
themselves  a  part  of  his  missionary  field.  He  is  therefore 
not  building  upon  another  man's  foundation  or  entering 
another  man's  territory  in  writing  to  them,  but  only  fulfil- 
ling the  duty  which  he  owes  to  all  his  churches,  among 
which  Colossse  reckons  itself  and  is  reckoned  by  Paul  as 
truly  as  any  other.  Paul's  epistle  is  thus  significant  for 
the  light  it  throws  upon  the  respect  in  which  he  was  held 
even  among  those  who  had  not  seen  his  face  and  the 
authority  which  he  exercised  over  them.  He  was  the 
apostle  of  a  much  wider  field  than  he  had  himself  person- 
ally traversed. 

The  Colossian  Christians  were  Gentiles,4  and  they  had 

1  Cf.  Eph.  vi.  19;  Col.  iv.  3.  8  Col.  i.  7,  iv.  12. 

2  Col.  ii.  1.  *  Cf.  Col.  i.  21,  ii.  13. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  367 

learned  from  Epaphras  Paul's  own  Gospel ; 1  but  at  the 
time  he  wrote  an  ascetic  and  legalistic  tendency  was  ap- 
pearing among  them,  not  dissimilar  to  that  referred  to 
in  Rom.  xiv.2  This  tendency  was  evidently  not  due  to 
the  influence  of  Judaizers,  such  as  Paul  had  to  contend 
with  in  Jerusalem  and  Galatia  ;  for  there  is  no  sign  that  the 
attempt  was  made  to  impose  circumcision  upon  the  Colos- 
sians  or  to  insist  upon  the  observance  of  the  Jewish  law  as 
a  condition  of  salvation.  Nor  is  there  any  sign  of  hostility 
to  Paul  himself,  or  of  an  inclination  to  question  his  author- 
ity or  the  truth  of  the  Gospel  which  he  preached.  There 
is  no  "indication,  moreover,  that  the  men  who  advocated 
the  practices  which  Paul  attacks  in  his  epistle  denied  the 
salvation  of  those  who  failed  to  observe  them.  They  seem 
only  to  have  recommended  them  as  the  means  of  reaching  a 
higher  stage  of  Christian  perfection,  and  of  making  one's 
salvation  more  secure.3  They  did  not  preach  another  Gos- 
pel, as  did  the  Judaizers  in  Galatia  whom  Paul  was  com- 
pelled to  anathematize.  They  accepted  the  Gospel  of  Paul, 
but  they  believed  that  only  by  abstinence  from  certain 
kinds  of  food  and  drink,  and  by  the  observance  of  certain 
days,  was  it  possible  to  reach  that  stage  of  perfection  to 
which  all  Christians  should  aspire ;  and  they  were  there- 
fore condemning  those  who  did  not  adopt  their  practices 
as  less  perfect  than  themselves.  The  differences  between 
their  principles  and  Paul's  lay  not  in  the  sphere  of  theology 
or  philosophy,  but  in  the  sphere  of  ethics.  Their  aims 
were  wholly  practical ;  and  Paul  opposed  them  not  because 
they  taught  a  false  philosophy  of  the  universe  or  even  a 
false  doctrine  of  Christ,  but  because  they  advocated  per- 
nicious observances,  the  practical  effect  of  which  was  to 
obscure  the  full  significance  of  Christ's  work  and  to  loosen 
the.  Christian's  grasp  upon  him.  The  rites  and  ceremo- 
nies and  the  ascetic  practices  which  they  inculcated  they 
apparently  based  upon  the  need  of  conciliating  and  ward- 
ing off  the  hostility  of  those  spiritual  beings  or  angels  who 

1  Col.  ii.  6  sq. 

2  On  the  Colossian  errorists,  see  especially  Von  Soden:  Hand-Kommentar, 
III.  1,  S.  5  sq. 

8  Of.  Col.  i.  6,  9  sq.,  22,  27,  28,  ii.  3,  10,  iii.  14. 


368  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

were  widely  supposed  among  the  Jews  to  be  active  in  the 
affairs  of  the  world,  and  to  exercise  a  large  measure  of 
control  over  the  destinies  of  men.  A  belief  in  the  exist- 
ence of  such  intermediate  spiritual  agents  and  a  tendency 
to  ritual  observance  and  ascetic  practice  were  also  wide- 
spread in  heathen  circles,  especially  in  the  East ;  but  there 
are  indications  in  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  that  the 
errorists  whom  he  opposes  there  were  Jews  rather  than 
Gentiles,  or  at  least  owed  their  principles  to  Jewish  in- 
fluence. At  any  rate,  their  insistence  upon  the  observ- 
ance of  new  moons  and  Sabbath  days,1  and  their  apparent 
high  estimate  of  circumcision,2  both  point  in  that  direction.3 
At  the  same  time  it  is  evident  that  they  were  not  Pharisaic 
legalists ;  and  it  is  almost  equally  clear  that  they  were  not 
Essenes  as  some  scholars  have  supposed.4  Ascetic  ten- 
dencies and  such  a  belief  in  angels  as  they  held  were  cer- 
tainly not  confined  to  that  sect ;  and  there  is  no  reference 
in  our  epistle  to  any  of  the  most  characteristic  features  of 
Essenism:  celibacy,  communism,  and  scrupulosity  in  con- 
nection with  rites  of  purification.  It  is  likely,  in  view  of 
their  special  emphasis  upon  such  practices  as  were  most  com- 
mon among  Gentile  adherents  of  Judaism  in  the  world  at 
large  outside  of- Palestine  —  abstinence  from  certain  kinds 
of  food  and  the  observance  of  sacred  days,  —  and  in  view  of 
their  angelology  and  their  appeal  to  philosophy  and  visions5 
in  support  of  their  demands,  that  the  errorists  were  under 
the  influence  of  Alexandrian  rather  than  Palestinian  Juda- 
ism. There  is  nothing  surprising  in  this,  for  the  Judaism 
of  Alexandria  made  itself  widely  felt  in  the  world  at  large, 
and  we  have  other  traces  of  its  influence  in  Asia  Minor.6 

But  though  the  Colossian  errorists  were  either  Jews 
themselves  or  under  Jewish  influence,  the  principles  which 

iCol.  ii.  16.  2  col.  ii.  11,  iii.  11. 

8  Cf.  also  the  words  irapASoffu  (ii.  8),  d6jfj.ara  (ii.  14  and  20),  and  ffroixeia 
(ii.  8,  20),  the  last  of  which  is  used  in  Gal.  iv.  3  and  9  to  designate  the  require- 
ments of  the  Jewish  law. 

4  So,  e.ff.t  Weiss:  Einleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament,  S.  253  (Eng.  Trans., 
1.  p.  330). 

6  Col.  ii.  8,  18. 

6  Compare,  for  instance,  Paul  himself,  who  was  trained  in  Tarsus ;  also 
Apollos  and  the  author  of  the  prologue  of  the  Fourth  Gospel. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  369 

they  preached  were  such  as  to  appeal  naturally  to  the  Gen- 
tile Christians  of  Colossse ;  for  the  same  kind  of  a  belief  in 
spiritual  beings,  bridging  the  chasm  between  man  and  the 
invisible  God,  and  the  same  tendency  to  conciliate  them 
and  win  their  assistance  in  the  effort  to  acquire  perfection 
and  rise  to  an  immediate  contemplation  of  Deity,  were 
widespread  throughout  the  East,  and  later  played  a  large 
part  in  the  development  of  Christian  theology  and  practice. 
We  have  in  Colossse  the  first  appearance  of  that  syncretism 
of  Oriental  theosophy  and  Christian  faith  which  in  one  form 
or  another  characterized  all  the  Gnostic  systems  of  the 
second  century,  and  which  was  not  without  its  influence 
upon  the  ultimate  conception  of  the  end  and  means  of  re- 
demption that  prevailed  in  the  orthodox  church.  We 
have  also  the  first  appearance  of  that  syncretism  of  heathen 
and  Christian  ritual  which  in  a  developed  form  was  so 
marked  a  feature  of  the  religious  life  of  the  church  of  the 
fourth  arid  following  centuries.  It  was  not  a  mere  form 
of  Jewish  Christianity  which  Paul  attacked  in  his  epistle, 
but  a  superimposition  of  Jewish  and  heathen  elements,  pri- 
marily practical,  secondarily  speculative,  upon  the  Christian 
faith  and'  life.  The  effect  of  such  elements,  Paul  saw  at 
once,  was  to  belittle  the  significance  of  Christ  and  of  his 
work,  and  to  lead  Christians  ultimately  to  depend  for  sal- 
vation upon  their  own  efforts  instead  of  the  divine  Christ 
within  them,  and  thus  to  substitute  the  old  life  in  the  flesh 
for  the  new  life  in  the  Spirit,  to  their  inevitable  destruction.1 
And  so,  after  commending  in  high  terms  the  faith  of 
his  Colossian  readers  and  offering  a  prayer  for  their  growth 
in  the  knowledge  of  God's  will  and  in  true  Christian  vir- 
tue, Paul  emphasizes  in  the  strongest  terms  the  exalted 
nature  of  Christ,  in  whom  dwelleth  the  fulness  of  God,  and 
his  superiority  to  and  sovereignty  over  all  the  visible  and 
invisible  forces  of  the  universe,2  in  order  to  show  the  Colos- 
sians  that  the  man  whom  Christ  has  redeemed  and  in  whom 
Christ  dwells  need  have  no  fear  of  principalities  and  pow- 
ers, either  earthly  or  heavenly.  It  is  with  this  aim  in 
view  that  he  asserts  that  redemption  in  Christ  means  the 

i  Col.  ii.  6,  8,  10,  18,  20,  23,  iii.  2.  2  Col.  i.  15  sq. 


370  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

forgiveness  of  sins,1  so  that  the  Colossian  Christians  need 
not  suppose  that  they  have  any  debt  to  pay  to  those 
beings  whose  hostility  they  fear.  And  it  is  with  the  same 
aim  that  he  emphasizes  the  fact  that  Christ  has  not  only 
created  all  things  visible  and  invisible,  but  has  also  recon- 
ciled them  all  to  himself  through  his  death,2  meaning 
thereby  not  that  he  has  saved  them,  for  Paul  does  not 
speak  of  reconciling  them  to  God,  but  that  he  has  put  an 
end  to  their  hostility  to  himself  and  to  those  in  whom  he 
dwells,  possibly  by  demonstrating  the  uselessness  of  that 
hostility ;  so  that  they  are  no  longer  to  be  feared  by  the 
Christian.  With  the  same  motive  Paul  then  goes  on  to 
emphasize  the  completeness  of  the  Christian's  redemption 
in  Christ,  which  not  only  insures  him  against  the  machina- 
tions of  all  hostile  spirits,  but  also  makes  him  holy  and 
without  blemish  and  unreprovable  before  God,3  and  thus 
renders  unnecessary  such  efforts  to  acquire  perfection  as 
are  urged  by  the  false  teachers.  After  this  preliminary 
statement  of  what  Christ  has  done  for  the  Christian,  Paul 
indicates  that  his  purpose  in  writing  thus  is  to  show  the 
groundlessness  and  harmfulness  of  the  practices  and  observ- 
ances which  the  errorists  are  endeavoring  to  impose  upon 
the  Colossians  ; 4  and  in  order  to  clinch  the  matter  he  em- 
phasizes again  Christ's  authority  over  all  principalities  and 
powers,  and  repeats  in  even  clearer  and  more  explicit  terms 
his  account  of  Christ's  work,  which  has  resulted  in  the 
complete  redemption  of  the  Christian  and  in  his  release 
from  the  bondage  of  the  law.5  Freed  as  he  has  been  from 
that  bondage,  let  the  Christian  not  subject  himself  again  to 
the  ordinances  of  men  and  endeavor  unnecessarily  to  pro- 
pitiate the  angels,  with  whom  he  has  really  nothing  more 
to  do  since  he  died  -with  Christ ;  for  the  ritual  observances 
and  ascetic  practices  which  he  undertakes  with  that  end 

i  Col.  i.  14.  2  Col.  i.  20.  8  Col.  i.  22.  4  Col.  ii.  4  sq. 

5  Col.  ii.  8-15.  In  ii.  14,  15  we  have  another  indication  that  the  Colossian 
errorists  were  Jews  or  under  Jewish  influence ;  for  the  angels,  or  the  princi- 
palities and  powers  (dpxa*  Ka-l  t£ov<rlai),  are  here  represented,  as  they  were 
commonly  thought  of  among  the  Jews,  as  the  agents  and  guardians  of  the  law. 
It  is  from  their  control,  according  to  Paul,  that  a  man  is  released  when  freed 
from  the  bondage  of  the  law. 


THE   WORK   OF  PAUL  371 

in  view,  instead  of  profiting  him  and  enabling  him  to  rise 
above  the  flesh,  only  contribute  to  its  power  and  cut  him 
off  from  Christ.1  After  thus  warning  his  readers  against 
the  false  teachers  and  showing  how  inconsistent  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  latter  were  with  the  true  conception  of  Christ's 
work  and  of  the  Christian  life  which  the  Colossians  had 
been  taught,  and  how,  if  they  were  to  follow  the  advice  of 
their  would-be  instructors,  they  would  be  separated  from 
Christ  and  thus  be  led  away  from  God  instead  of  toward 
him,  Paul  exhorts  them  to  live  the  true  Christian  life,  and 
to  set  their  minds,  as  those  who  have  died  and  risen  again 
with  Christ,  on  things  above  rather  than  on  things  upon 
the  earth.2  The  conduct  which  that  true  Christian  life 
involves  is  then  exhibited  both  in  its  individual  and  in  its 
social  aspects,  and  in  strong  contrast  to  the  observances  and 
practices  inculcated  by  the  false  teachers.3  The  epistle 
closes  with  various  personal  notices  and  salutations,  and 
with  an  exhortation  to  Archippus,  who  evidently  held  offi- 
cial position  in  the  Colossian  church,  to  fulfil  his  duties 
faithfully. 

The  Colossians  at  the  time  Paul  wrote  had  apparently 
not  been  led  far  astray;  for  he  does  not  exhort  them  to 
return  to  their  first  faith,  but  to  hold  it  fast  and  remain 
steadfast  in  it,  and  he  speaks  of  them  in  terms  of  the  highest 
commendation.4  They  may  have  begun  to  adopt  the 
practices  recommended  by  the  false  teachers,5  but  they 
still  believed  the  Gospel  of  salvation  in  Christ  as  taught 
by  Paul,  and  all  that  he  needed  to  do  was  to  show  them 
how  much  that  salvation  implied  and  how  inconsistent 
with  it  were  the  principles  which  they  were  asked  to 
accept.  He  did  not  find  it  necessary  to  defend  his  Gospel 
or  to  prove  its  truth,  but  simply  to  point  out  what  was 
involved  in  it;  and  he  was  confident  that  that  would  be 
enough  to  convince  the  Colossians  of  the  error  of  the 
course  which  had  been  urged  upon  them.6  Evidently  the 

1  Col.  ii.  16-23.  3  Col.  iii.  5-iv.  6.  «  Cf.  Col.  ii.  20. 

2  Col.  iii.  1-4.  4  Col.  i.  4  sq.,  9,  ii.  5,  6. 

6  It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  it  is  an  increased  acquaintance  with  God's  will 
which  Paul  desires  for  the  Colossians  in  i.  9.  It  is  thus  practical,  not  specu- 
lative, knowledge  that  he  feels  they  need.  Cf.  also  i.  6,  26. 


372  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

false  teachers  were  not  attacking  or  trying  to  undermine 
Paul's  doctrine  of  salvation  and  of  the  person  and  work  of 
Christ.  Indeed  it  looks  very  much  as  if  they  accepted  his 
Gospel,  as  the  Colossians  in  general  did,  without  realizing 
the  practical  consequences  that  were  involved  in  it.  Paul's 
sharp  antithesis  of  flesh  and  spirit,  naturally  suggesting  as 
it  did  the  value  of  asceticism,  was  quite  in  line  with  their 
own  tendencies,  and  they  very  likely  regarded  him  with 
respect  and  believed  themselves  to  be  in  essential  agree- 
ment with  him.  This  would  explain  the  fact  that  Paul 
treats  them  with  comparative  mildness  and  nowhere  de- 
nounces them  bitterly ;  and  the  still  farther  fact  that  he 
represents  them  not  as  denying  Christ,  as  the  Galatian 
Judaizers  denied  him,  but  simply  as  losing  their  hold  upon 
him.1  Such  treatment  would  have  been  impossible  had 
they  consciously  degraded  Christ  and  made  him  simply  one 
of  a  number  of  spiritual  beings  or  aeons,  as  the  Gnostics 
subsequently  did ;  but  there  is  no  sign  that  they  did  any- 
thing of  the  sort.  Their  error  was  practical  only,  and  con- 
cerned the  effects  of  Christ's  work,  not  his  nature  or  his 
character.  All  that  Paul  says  about  the  latter  is  said  in 
the  interest  of  the  former,  with  the  purpose  of  showing 
that  Christ's  redemptive  work  is  absolutely  complete  and 
leaves  no  place  for  propitiatory  observances  and  practices. 
But  this  consideration  disposes  of  the  chief  objection 
which  has  been  brought  against  the  authenticity  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Colossians.  The  argument  against  its  genu- 
ineness drawn  from  its  language  and  style  has  no  weight. 
While  there  are  undoubtedly  linguistic  and  stylistic  pecul- 
iarities in  the  epistle,  the  most  noticeable  of  them  can  be 
explained  from  the  subject-matter  and  from  the  polemic  use 
by  Paul  of  the  terminology  of  those  whose  teachings  he  is 
refuting ;  and  the  marks  of  identity  with  his  acknowledged 
works,  especially  with  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  which 
was  written  at  about  the  same  time,  are  far  more  numerous 
and  striking.  But  the  Christology  of  the  epistle  has  long 
been  a  stumbling-block  and  has  led  many  scholars  to  deny 
that  Paul  can  have  been  its  author.  But  when  the  purpose 

l  Col.  ii.  19. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  373 

of  the  epistle  is  kept  clearly  in  mind ;  when  it  is  realized 
that  the  author's  object  was  not  to  teach  Christology,  but 
to  emphasize  the  completeness  of  Christ's  redemptive  work, 
in  order  to  show  the  groundlessness  of  the  observances  and 
practices  recommended  in  Colossee,  the  difficulties  vanish. 
Thus  the  striking  assertion  that  in  Christ  "  dwells  all  the 
fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily,"  1  which  goes  beyond  numer- 
ous utterances  in  Paul's  other  writings  only  in  form  and 
emphasis,  finds  its  explanation,  as  the  context  shows,  in 
his  desire  to  bring  out  the  fact  that  the  man  who  is  in 
Christ  has  full  redemption  and  does  not  need  to  seek 
fulness  and  perfectness  in  ritual  observance  and  ascetic 
practice.  And  so  again  the  passage  upon  the  creative 
work  of  Christ,'2  in  which  he  is  represented  not  simply  as 
the  agent  of  creation  as  in  1  Cor.  viii.  6,  but  also  as  its 
author,  ground  and  end,  may  be  fully  accounted  for  by 
Paul's  wish  to  emphasize  in  the  strongest  terms  Christ's 
superiority  to  and  authority  over  all  those  spiritual  powers, 
of  whom  the  false  teachers  were  making  so  much;  and 
though  it  is  an  advance  upon  anything  found  in  his  other 
epistles,  it  is  not  inconsistent  with  them  and  is  entirely 
natural  under  the  circumstances.  And  so  finally  the 
statement  that  Christ  has  reconciled  unto  himself  heavenly 
as  well  as  earthly  things  3  is  made  for  the  sole  purpose  of 
showing  the  needlessness  of  the  observances  and  practices 
in  question ;  and  though  it  cannot  be  duplicated  in  his  other 
epistles,  it  is  not  in  the  least  un-Pauline,  for  it  does  not 
mean  that  Christ  has  saved  heavenly  beings  or  angels,  as 
he  has  saved  men,  but  that  he  has  put  an  end  to  their 
machinations  against  himself  and  those  in  whom  he  dwells, 
so  that  they  need  no  longer  be  feared  by  the  Christian. 
Thus  all  the  advances  upon  the  statements  of  Paul's  other 
epistles  touching  the  person  and  work  of  Christ,  may  be 
satisfactorily  explained  in  the  light  of  the  situation  which 
called  forth  the  letter  to  the  Colossians  without  recourse 
to  the  hypothesis  that  it  is  the  work  of  another  hand. 
And  indeed  that  hypothesis  cannot  be  successfully  main- 
tained in  the  face  of  the  genuine  Paulinism  which  underlies 

i  Col.  ii.  9 ;  cf.  i.  19.  2  Col.  i.  16,  17.  8  Col.  i.  20. 


374  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

the  entire  epistle :  the  conception  of  redemption  as  accom- 
plished by  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ;  of  salva- 
tion as  dying  with  Christ  unto  the  flesh  and  rising  again 
with  him  a  new  creature  ;  of  the  Christian  life  as  the 
divine  life  in  man,  a  life  freed  from  the  bondage  not  of  the 
flesh  alone,  but  also  of  the  law;  of  baptism  as  burial  with 
Christ ;  of  faith  as  union  with  him  in  the  new  life,  and 
thus  not  merely  one  grace  or  virtue  among  many,  but  the 
root  of  all  the  Christian  virtues  and  graces.  When  it  is 
realized  how  little  Paul  was  understood  even  in  the  period 
immediately  succeeding  his  death,  and  at  how  many 
points  his  disciples  misinterpreted  him,  it  is  difficult  to 
suppose  that  any  one  else  can  have  written  an  epistle 
which  presents  so  accurately  and  in  such  true  proportions 
the  most  characteristic  features  of  his  Gospel,  and  which 
has  that  Gospel  as  its  very  heart  and  essence. 

The  occasion  for  writing  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians 
was  supplied  apparently  by  the  arrival  of  Epaphras  in 
Rome.  He  brought  Paul  news  of  the  love  and  faith  and 
steadfastness  of  the  Christians  of  Colossse,1  and  at  the  same 
time,  it  would  seem,  informed  him  of  the  efforts  that  were 
making  to  impose  upon  them  the  observances  and  practices 
already  referred  to.  What  brought  Epaphras  to  Rome,  we 
do  not  know.  It  is  hardly  probable  that  he  came  thither 
as  a  messenger  of  the  Colossian  church  to  consult  Paul  in 
regard  to  the  new  principles  that  were  preached  among 
them;  for  Paul  makes  no  reference  to  any  request  for 
advice  or  instruction  on  their  part,  and  he  sent  his  epistle 
to  Colossse  not  by  Epaphras,  but  by  Tychicus  of  Asia.2  He 
takes  pains  also  to  emphasize  Epaphras'  love  and  devotion 
to  the  Colossians  and  the  good  account  he  has  given  of 
them,  apparently  fearing  that  his  report  of  the  existing 
troubles  may  arouse  their  resentment. 

With  Tychicus,  the  bearer  of  the  epistle,  went  also  Onesi- 
mus,  a  runaway  slave  belonging  to  Philemon,  a  wealthy 
Christian  of  Colossse.  Onesimus,  it  seems,  had  come  to 
Rome,  and  had  there  been  converted  under  the  influence 
of  Paul,3  and  the  apostle  now  sends  him  back  to  his  mas- 

i  Col.  i.  7  sq.,  ii.  5.  2  Col.  iv.  7 ;  cf .  Acts  xx.  4.  »  Philemon  10. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  375 

ter,  a  new  man,  with  a  note  of  commendation  in  which  he 
begs  Philemon  to  receive  his  returning  slave  as  he  would 
receive  the  writer  himself.  The  brief  note  is  one  of  the 
most  charming  things  of  the  kind  ever  written.  It  shows 
the  most  exquisite  tact  and  delicacy,  and  breathes  through- 
out a  spirit  of  true  Christian  courtesy.  It  reveals  a  side 
of  Paul's  character  which  is  entirely  in  keeping  with  what 
we  know  of  him  from  his  other  epistles,  but  which  nowhere, 
else  appears  so  clearly  and  distinctly.  The  personal  affec- 
tion and  devotion  with  which  he  was  regarded  by  his  com- 
panions and  disciples  need  no  explanation  in  the  light  of 
such  a  note  as  this.  It  is  noticeable  that  Paul  does  not 
once  refer  to  his  own  apostleship.  He  lays  no  commands 
upon  Philemon  in  virtue  of  his  spiritual  authority.  He 
writes  simply  as  one  Christian  to  another.  But  he  writes 
with  the  assured  confidence  that  Philemon's  gratitude  and 
affection  will  lead  him  to  do  gladly  whatever  he  can  for 
the  one  to  whom  he  owes  his  Christian  faith,  and  so 
though  he  requests  him  to  charge  to  his  account  whatever 
loss  he  may  have  incurred  through  Onesimus'  flight,  and 
promises  to  make  it  good,1  he  indicates  in  the  same  pas- 
sage that  he  does  not  expect  him  to  make  any  such  charge, 
for  Philemon  is  his  debtor  to  an  amount  not  to  be  measured 
in  money.  Paul's  confidence  that  Philemon's  gratitude 
and  affection  would  prompt  him  to  do  whatever  he  could 
for  him  illustrates  the  influence  enjoyed  and  the  authority 
wielded  in  the  early  church,  not  by  Paul  alone,  but  by 
all  the  apostles  and  evangelists.  The  one  to  whom  a  man 
or  a  community  owed  their  Christian  faith  must  always 
have  been  held  in  peculiar  honor,  and  his  requests  must 
have  had  almost  the  force  of  a  command  with  them.  It 
was  not  in  the  relation  of  rulers  to  their  subjects,  but  of 
fathers  to  their  children,  that  the  apostles  stood  toward 
the  churches  which  they  had  founded,  and  their  influence 
and  authority  were  measured  by  their  converts'  love  and 
devotion  for  them.  It  is  altogether  probable  that  Paul, 
though  he  had  not  been  in  Colossse,  was  personally 
acquainted  with  Philemon,  and  that  it  was  under  his  per- 

i  Philemon  18,  19. 


376  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

sonal  influence  that  the  latter  had  been  brought  to  Christ, 
possibly  during  a  temporary  stay  in  Ephesus.  But  Paul 
was  apparently  regarded  with  the  same  respect  and  affec- 
tion even  by  those  Colossians  who  had  not  seen  his  face ; 
and  was  looked  upon  as  the  author  of  their  Christian 
faith  even  though  he  had  not  himself  preached  the  Gospel 
to  them. 

Paul's  brief  note  to  Philemon  is  also  significant  be- 
cause it  shows  the  attitude  which  he  took  toward  existing 
social  institutions.  Though  he  taught  with  the  utmost 
insistence  that  every  man  is  a  freeman  in  Christ,  he  yet 
refused  to  draw  from  that  fundamental  principle  the  nat- 
ural conclusion  that  slaves  ought  to  renounce  the  ser- 
vice of  their  masters  and  realize  their  Christian  liberty  in 
freedom  from  all  earthly  bondage.  In  his  epistles  to  the 
Corinthians,-  he  admonishes  converted  slaves  to  remain  in 
the  service  of  their  masters  and  not  even  to  seek  to  be 
free,  for  they  can  serve  God  as  well  in  that  condition  of 
life  as  in  any  other;  and  he  nowhere  so  much  as  hints 
that  he  desires  or  expects  to  see  slavery  done  away  with. 
It  may  be  doubted,  indeed,  whether  such  a  thought  ever 
occurred  to  him.  Christianity,  as  he  understood  it,  did 
not  directly  affect  social  or  political  conditions.  There 
were  still  to  be  rulers  and  governors,  and  they  were 
to  be  treated  with  all  respect,  and  loyal  obedience  was 
to  be  rendered  them.  There  were  still  to  be  rich  and 
poor,  masters  and  slaves,  as  there  had  always  been.  The 
Christian  life  was  to  be  lived  in  the  midst  of  existing  con- 
ditions. It  was  to  manifest  itself  in  faithfulness  to  duty, 
in  love  and  unselfishness,  in  cheerful  contentment  with 
one's  lot  in  life,  and  in  the  grateful  acceptance  of  all 
things  as  the  gifts  of  God.  A  political  and  social  revolu- 
tion was  the  last  thing  Paul  was  seeking,  and  the  last 
thing  he  would  have  countenanced.  And  so  when  the 
runaway  slave  became  a  Christian  under  his  influence, 
the  first  thing  Paul  urged  upon  him  was  the  duty  of 
returning  to  his  master  and  making  good  in  so  far  as 
he  could  for  the  inconvenience  and  loss  which  he  had 
caused  him.  There  is  no  hint  in  Paul's  letter  that  he 


THE  WORK  OF  PAUL  377 

condoned  Onesimus'  conduct  in  leaving  his  master.  The 
fact  is  recognized  that  Onesimus  had  seriously  wronged 
Philemon,  and  that  the  latter  had  the  right  to  be  angry 
with  him  and  to  exact  a  heavy  penalty  from  him.  Nor  is 
there  any  hint  that  Philemon  ought  to  grant  Onesimus 
his  liberty  and  no  longer  hold  him  as  a  slave.  Paul 
expresses  the  hope,  to  be  sure,  that  he  will  now  regard  him 
as  a  Christian  brother,  but  that  does  not  mean  that  he 
wants  him  to  set  him  free.  It  means  only  that  the  old 
relation  shall  be  sweetened  and  beautified  by  the  recogni- 
tion of  the  new  tie  of  Christian  fellowship. 

Paul's  letter  was  addressed  primarily  to  Philemon,  but 
his  wife  Apphia,  Archippus,  and  the  church  in  Philemon's 
house  are  also  mentioned  in  the  salutation,  and  are  all  of 
them  included  in  the  benediction  at  the  close.  As  Onesi- 
mus was  a  member  of  Philemon's  household,  of  course  all 
of  his  family  would  be  interested  in  his  return,  and  es- 
pecially those  who  belonged  to  the  church  in  his  house, 
among  whom  the  converted  Onesimus  would  henceforth 
be  numbered.  It  was  therefore  a  delicate  act  of  courtesy 
that  they  should  also  be  addressed.  The  reason  for  the 
inclusion  of  Archippus  is  not  altogether  clear.  It  is  pos- 
sible that  he  was  one  of  Philemon's  own  family,  whose 
name  was  mentioned,  along  with  that  of  Apphia,  simply 
because  of  his  special  prominence  and  influence.  But 
we  learn  from  Col.  iv.  17  that  he  held  some  position  of 
authority  among  the  Christians  of  Colossae,  and  it  is  very 
likely  that  he  was  at  the  head  of  the  Colossian  church. 
He  may  have  been  addressed  by  Paul,  therefore,  as  a 
representative  of  the  church  in  the  city,  which  of  course 
included  the  little  circle  in  Philemon's  house,  and  in 
recognition  of  his  interest  in  Onesimus  as  a  member  of 
his  flock. 

Closely  related  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  both  in 
content  and  in  style,  is  the  so-called  Epistle  to  the  Ephe- 
sians.  If  it  is  Paul's  own  work,  it  was  evidently  written  at 
about  the  same  time  as  Colossians  and  sent  by  the  hand  of 
the  same  man,  Tychicus.1  The  object  of  the  epistle  is 

1  Cf.  Eph.  vi.  21  with  Col.  iv.  7. 


378  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

purely  practical,  the  author's  fundamental  purpose  being 
to  incite  his  readers  to  live  in  a  manner  worthy  of  their 
Christian  calling.  With  this  end  in  view,  he  emphasizes 
first  of  all  the  good  purpose  of  God,  who  chose  them  to 
be  his  own  children,  and  redeemed  them  through  Christ 
from  a  life  of  sin  to  a  life  of  holiness.1  He  then  prays 
that  they  may  appreciate  the  glory  of  their  inheritance 
and  the  greatness  of  their  redemption,2  and  in  order  to 
quicken  their  appreciation  he  magnifies  the  power  and  the 
love  of  God,  who,  though  they  were  dead  in  sin,  raised 
them  with  Christ  to  a  new  and  heavenly  life.3  And  he 
reminds  them  of  the  fact  that  though,  as  Gentiles,  they 
were  once  strangers  and  aliens,  the  wall  of  separation 
between  them  and  the  covenant  people,  Israel,  was  broken 
down  by  Christ  and  they  were  made  members  of  the  one 
household  of  God  and  became  temples  for  God's  habita- 
tion.4 In  view  of  the  purpose  of  God  thus  manifested  in 
their  redemption,  Paul  gives  utterance,  after  enlarging 
upon  the  fact  that  he  had  been  called  to  preach  the 
Gospel  to  the  Gentiles,  to  the  prayer  that  Christ  may 
dwell  in  their  hearts  through  faith  in  order  that  they  may 
apprehend  the  greatness  of  the  divine  purpose  for  them, 
and  may  know  the  love  of  Christ  and  thus  be  "filled  unto 
all  the  fulness  of  God."5  The  remainder  of  the  epistle 
is  devoted  to  the  conduct  which  ought  to  be  exhibited  by 
those  whom  God  has  honored  with  so  great  and  glorious 
a  calling ;  emphasis  being  laid  especially  upon  peace  and 
unity,  upon  holiness,  upon  kindness  and  brotherly  love, 
and  upon  the  mutual  duties  of  wives  and  husbands,  chil- 
dren and  parents,  servants  and  masters.6  After  a  stirring 
exhortation  to  manful  warfare  in  the  conflict  with  the 
hosts  of  wickedness 7  and  after  a  request  for  the  prayers 
of  his  readers  that  he  may  preach  the  Gospel  with  bold- 
ness, the  author  closes  with  a  reference  to  the  bearer  of 
the  epistle  and  with  a  benediction. 

It   is   a   mistake    to   suppose    that    the    Epistle  to    the 
Ephesians  was  written  with  any  speculative  or  dogmatic 

1  Eph.  i.  3-14.  a  Eph.  ii.  1-10.  •"  Kph.  iii.  1-19.          "  Eph.  vi.  10. 

2  Eph.  i.  15  sq.  «  Eph.  ii.  11-22.         «  Eph.  iv.  1-vi.  9. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  379 

purpose.  Its  aim,  as  has  been  seen,  was  exclusively  prac- 
tical, and  its  profound  utterances  concerning  the  eternal 
will  of  God  and  concerning  Christ  and  his  church  were 
called  forth  solely  by  that  aim.  It  is  also  a  mistake  to 
suppose  that  it  was  written  with  the  purpose  of  putting 
an  end  to  existing  divisions  between  Jewish  and  Gentile 
factions  within  the  church  or  churches  addressed.  The 
epistle  contains  in  reality  no  sign  of  such  divisions. 
The  former  state  of  alienation  in  which  the  Gentiles 
lived  is  referred  to  by  the  author  only  for  the  purpose 
of  emphasizing  the  greatness  of  their  redemption ;  and 
the  Christian  unity  which  is  inculcated  with  such  earnest- 
ness is  a  unity  not  between  Jews  and  Gentiles  particu- 
larly, but  between  all  Christians  within  the  one  household 
of  faith. 

The  occasion  which  gave  rise  to  the  epistle,  we  do  not 
know.  There  is  no  sign  that  false  teachers  were  at  work 
among  the  readers,  as  they  were  in  Colossse.  The  sins 
attacked  are  such  as  all  Gentile  Christians  were  liable  to  ; 
and  the  virtues  might  with  equal  propriety  have  been  urged 
upon  every  Gentile  Christian  community.  Indeed,  they 
are  such  as  we  find  Paul  emphasizing  in  all  his  epistles  ;  and 
everything  that  is  said  might  apply  equally  well  to  any  of 
his  churches.  When  this  fact  is  taken  in  connection  with 
the  further  fact,  that  the  epistle  contains  absolutely  no  refer- 
ence to  the  origin  and  history  of  the  church  or  churches 
addressed,  or  to  the  condition  and  character  of  its  readers, 
beyond  the  fact  that  they  are  Gentile  Christians  ;  no  greet- 
ings and  no  mention  of  names ;  no  hint  of  any  previous 
connection  or  personal  acquaintance  between  writer  and 
readers;  no  trace  of  any  local  coloring,  —  it  is  difficult  to 
believe  that  it  was  addressed  to  any  particular  church,  above 
all  to  the  church  of  Ephesus,  with  which  Paul  had  been  so 
intimately  associated  for  so  many  years,  and  where  he  had  so 
large  a  circle  of  friends.  Indeed,  the  supposition  that  the 
epistle  was  addressed  to  the  Christians  of  Ephesus  is  ap- 
parently inconsistent  with  the  author's  words  in  i.  15,  which 
imply  that  he  knew  of  his  readers'  Christian  faith  only  by 
hearsay,  and  is  completely  ruled  out  by  his  words  in  iii.  2  sq., 


380  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

which  indicate  still  more  clearly  that  he  was  not  person- 
ally acquainted  with  them.  Fortunately,  internal  evidence 
is  supported  in  this  case  by  external ;  for  some  of  the  most 
ancient  manuscripts  omit  the  words  ev  'E^ea-p  in  the  salu- 
tation, and  the  words  were  likewise  wanting  in  the  copies 
of  Tertullian,  Origen,  and  some  other  Fathers,  though  the 
tradition  that  the  epistle  was  addressed  to  the  church  of 
Ephesus  was  already  current  and  was  accepted  by  them. 
According  to  Marcion,  who  was  the  first  Christian  so  far 
as  we  know  to  make  a  collection  of  Paul's  epistles,  the 
letter  was  written  to  the  Laodiceans.1  But  though  the 
Laodiceans  would  fulfil  the  requirements  of  the  case 
better  than  the  Ephesians,  since  Paul  had  never  visited 
Laodicea,  it  is  difficult  to  understand  how  the  name  of  the 
latter  city  can  have  been  displaced  by  the  name  Ephesus. 
Moreover,  the  general  characteristics  of  the  letter,  already 
referred  to,  make  it  extremely  improbable  that  it  was  ad- 
dressed to  any  particular  church.  It  would  seem,  in  fact, 
as  is  now  generally  admitted,  that  it  must  have  been  a  cir- 
cular letter  addressed  to  a  number  of  churches,  with  most  of 
which,  at  any  rate,  the  author  was  not  personally  acquainted. 
That  it  was  intended  for  a  definite  circle  of  churches  and 
not  for  the  church  at  large,  or  for  Gentile  Christians  in  gen- 
eral, is  clear  from  various  passages  where  the  readers  are 
represented  as  constituting  only  a  part  of  the  whole  body 
of  saints  2  and  also  from  vi.  21  sq.,  where  the  commission  of 
Tychicus  is  mentioned.  As  the  salutation  contained  the 
words  ev  'E^eVft)  in  some  manuscripts  and  ev  \aoSucctq  in 
others,  and  as  it  was  carried  by  Tychicus,  a  resident  of  Asia, 
along  with  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  it  is  safe  to  assume 
that  the  churches  addressed  in  it  belonged  to  Asia  Minor, 
and  at  least  some  if  not  all  of  them  to  the  province  of  Asia. 
It  is  possible,  then,  though  by  no  means  certain,  that  Ephesus 
was  one  of  the  churches  addressed ;  for  Paul's  words  in  iii. 
2  do  not  necessarily  imply  that  none  of  the  readers  of  the 
epistle  knew  him  personally.  And  though  if  the  author  had 
Ephesus  chiefly  in  mind,  we  might  expect  such  a  form  of 
greeting  as  is  found  in  2  Cor.  i.  1,  and  at  least  some  local 

1  Cf.  Tertullian  :  Adv.  Marc.  V.  11,  17.  -  Eph.  i.  15,  iii.  18,  vi.  18. 


THE  WORK   OF   PAUL  381 

coloring ;  if  he  were  thinking,  on  the  other  hand,  primarily 
of  the  needs  of  those  churches  which  he  had  riot  seen,  he 
might  write  as  he  did  even  though  the  letter  was  to  be  read 
also  in  Ephesus.  It  is  probable  that  the  original  copy  con- 
tained in  the  salutation  the  names  of  all  the  churches  for 
which  it  was  intended ;  for  the  mention  of  some  place  or 
places  after  rot?  OVVLV  is  required  to  complete  the  sense,  and 
it  is  hardly  likely  that  Paul  adopted  the  essentially  modern 
device  of  leaving  a  blank  space  to  be  filled  in  successively 
by  the  several  churches  addressed.  If  we  suppose  that  they 
were  all  named  in  the  original  letter,  each  church  in  taking 
a  copy  of  it  to  be  preserved  for  its  own  use,  as  it  could 
hardly  fail  to  do,  would  naturally  omit  as  unnecessary  all 
the  names  except  its  own.  The  absence,  then,  of  any  name 
in  the  most  ancient  manuscripts  known  to  us  may  be  due 
to  the  fact  that  an  early  scribe,  haying  a  number  of  copies 
before  him  bearing  the  names  of  different  places,'  did  not 
venture  to  decide  between  them,  and  consequently  left  the 
space  blank,  possibly  noting  in  the  margin  his  conjecture 
that  the  epistle  really  belonged  to  Ephesus,  the  chief  and 
only  well-known  city  of  the  province.1 

In  Col.  iv.  16  Paul  mentions  an  epistle  from  Laodicea 
which  he  directs  the  Colossians  to  read.  It  is  thought 
by  many  scholars  that  the  epistle  thus  referred  to  is  our 
Ephesians,  and  there  is  much  to  be  said  in  favor  of  the 
opinion.  As  Marcion's  copy  of  the  letter  was  addressed 
to  the  Laodiceans,  it  is  altogether  likely  that  Laodicea 
was  one  of  the  cities  for  which  the  epistle  was  intended 
by  Paul.  Moreover,  the  close  connection  between  the 
epistles  to  the  Colossians  and  Ephesians  makes  the  men- 
tion of  the  one  in  the  other  very  natural ;  and  the  form  of 
expression,  the  "epistle  from  Laodicea"  instead  of  the 
"  epistle  to  the  Laodiceans,"  suggests  just  such  a  circular 
letter  as  our  Ephesians.  Laodicea  was  on  the  direct  road 
from  Ephesus  to  Colossse,  and  the  circular  letter,  if  intended 
for  both  cities,  would  naturally  reach  Laodicea  first  and  be 
passed  on  thence  to  Colossse.  On  the  other  hand,  it  should 

1  Upon  the  purpose  and  destination  of  Ephesians,  see  especially  Hort :  Pro* 
legomena  to  St.  Paul's  Epistles  to  the  Romans  and  the  Epkesians,  p.  75  sq. 


382  THE   APOSTOLIC    AGE 

be  observed  that  Tychicus  was  apparently  charged  with 
the  duty  of  delivering  the  circular  letter  to  all  the  churches 
addressed  and  therefore  Paul's  direction  to  the  Colossians 
to  read  the  epistle  from  Laodicea  seems  superfluous  if  that 
epistle  was  the  one  which  Tychicus  was  himself  carrying. 
In  the  light  of  this  fact  it  must  be  recognized  that  the 
identification  of  the  two,  probable  though  it  may  seem, 
cannot  be  positively  asserted. 

There  is  no  indication,  as  has  been  already  remarked, 
that  Paul's  circular  letter  was  called  forth  by  any  special 
troubles  and  difficulties  in  the  churches  addressed.  The 
sole  occasion  for  it  seems  to  have  been  found  in  Tychicus' 
proposed  journey  to  the  East,  and  in  Paul's  desire  to  seize 
the  opportunity  for  uttering  general  words  of  counsel  and 
exhortation  to  the  Christians  of  a  large  and  important 
district  to  which  his  especial  attention  had  been  recently 
directed  by  the  visit  of  Epaphras,  who  was  immediately  in- 
terested at  least  in  the  churches  of  Laodicea  and  Hierapo- 
lis,  as  well  as  in  the  church  of  his  own  city,  Colossse. 
The  epistle  thus  differs  notably  from  the  other  epistles  of 
Paul,  all  of  which  were  called  forth  by  some  particular 
occasion  or  by  some  peculiar  need  on  the  part  of  those 
addressed.  Ephesians  alone  was  prompted  only  by  his 
general  desire  to  do  good  as  opportunity  offered. 

The  authenticity  of  the  epistle,  which  resembles  so 
closely  in  many  respects  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  is 
denied  by  all  that  deny  the  genuineness  of  the  latter ;  and 
even  some  who  ascribe  Colossians  to  Paul  are  unable  to 
admit  that  he  wrote  Ephesians.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  difficulties  which  beset  the  latter  are  greater  than 
those  which  attach  to  the  former,  and  that  the  marks  of 
Paul's  own  hand  are  fewer  and  less  distinct.  But  when 
the  authenticity  of  the  one  has  been  admitted,  the  principal 
arguments  against  the  genuineness  of  the  other  are  de- 
prived of  their  force.  The  style  and  diction  of  the  two 
are  similar ;  and  though  the  peculiarities  which  differen- 
tiate Colossians  from  the  other  writings  of  Paul  are  still 
more  marked  in  Ephesians,  the  contrast  is  not  sufficiently 
great  to  prove  difference  of  authorship.  If  we  had  only 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  383 

Ephesians,  we  might  find  it  difficult  to  believe  it  was 
written  by  the  author  of  the  epistles  to  the  Galatians, 
Thessalonians,  Corinthians,  Romans,  and  Philippians.  But 
Colossians  constitutes  a  bridge  between  it  and  the  others, 
and  shows  that  identity  of  authorship  is  not  impossible. 
Moreover,  the  resemblances  between  Colossians  and  Ephe- 
sians, both  in  style  and  in  matter,  are  much  easier  to  ex- 
plain on  the  assumption  that  they  were  written  by  the 
same  man  at  about  the  same  time  than  on  the  assumption 
that  the  author  of  the  latter  copied  from  the  former. 
Many  of  the  ideas  as  well  as  many  of  the  words  and 
phrases  are  the  same  in  both,  but  there  is  nowhere  a  trace 
of  slavish  or  mechanical  reproduction.  Ephesians,  like 
Colossians,  was  written  with  a  free  hand,  and  the  coinci- 
dences were  to  all  appearances  entirely  undesigned.  Either 
the  two  were  written  by  the  same  *man,  or  the  author  of 
the  one  was  so  saturated  with  the  thought  and  language 
of  the  other,  that  he  reproduced  them  unconsciously  and 
without  premeditation  even  when  writing  upon  a  totally 
different  subject.  The  latter  alternative  is  possible  but 
certainly  less  likely  than  the  former. 

The  chief  argument  against  the  genuineness  of  the  Epis- 
tle to  the  Ephesians  is  drawn  from  its  doctrinal  state- 
ments. But  here  again,  as  in  Colossians,  the  advance  upon 
Paul's  other  writings  is  almost  wholly  in  the  matter  of 
emphasis,  and  when  the  practical  purpose  of  the  epistle 
is  taken  into  account,  the  difference  makes  no  insuper- 
able difficulty.  The  Christology  of  the  epistle  does  not 
go  beyond  that  of  Colossians,  and  even  in  its  statements 
concerning  the  church,  which  is  a  subject  of  especial 
interest  to  the  author,  there  is  nothing  inconsistent  with 
Paul's  utterances  in  other  epistles.  Thus  the  conception 
of  the  church  as  the  body  of  Christ,  which  is  contained 
implicitly  in  Romans,1  appears  still  more  clearly  in  1 
Corinthians,2  and  finds  explicit  utterance  in  Colossians.3 
That  the  author  of  Ephesians  should  concern  himself 
exclusively  with  the  church  universal  instead  of  with  its 
local  manifestation,  the  particular  congregation,  which  is 

l  Rom.  xii.  4  sq.  2  1  Cor.  xii.  12  sq.  »  Col.  i.  18,  24. 


384  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

dealt  with  in  most  of  Paul's  epistles,  is  not  at  all  surprising, 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  he  was  writing  a  circular  letter  ad- 
dressed to  no  single  community,  and  that  peace  and  Chris- 
tian unity  were  virtues  upon  which  it  was  necessary  to 
lay  special  emphasis.  Even  in  1  Corinthians1  and  in  Phi- 
lippians,2  the  church  in  its  larger  sense  is  referred  to,  and 
the  two  passages  in  Colossians  3  go  as  far  as  anything  in 
Ephesians.  There  are  some  passages  in  the  epistle,  it  is 
true,  which  look  suspicious,  and  suggest  another  writer 
than  Paul.  Such,  for  instance,  are  ii.  20,  where  the 
"  apostles  and  prophets  "  are  represented  as  the  founda- 
tion of  the  church,  and  iii.  5,  where  the  "  holy  apostles  and 
prophets  "  are  spoken  of  as  the  recipients  of  the  Gospel 
revelation.  But  the  word  "holy"  was  applied  by  Paul 
to  all  Christians,  and  it  is  not  necessary  to  give  it  any  dis- 
tinctive and  exclusive  sense  in  this  passage ;  while  if  we 
understand  by  the  apostles  in  both  cases,  in  accordance 
with  a  frequent  usage,  not  the  Twelve  and  himself 
merely,  but  all  the  travelling  missionaries  and  heralds 
of  the  Gospel,  and  by  the  prophets  the  Christian  prophets 
to  whom  he  so  frequently  refers,  neither  passage  need 
make  us  any  serious  difficulty.  The  author's  emphasis 
upon  the  charismatic  apostles  and  prophets  in  these  pas- 
sages, and  also  in  iv.  11,  is,  in  fact,  entirely  in  keeping  with 
his  emphasis  in  other  epistles  upon  the  presence  of  the 
Spirit  in  the  church  revealing  the  truth  and  will  of  God. 
It  is  true  that  evangelists  and  pastors,  who  are  mentioned 
with  apostles,  prophets,  and  teachers  in  iv.  11,  are  referred 
to  nowhere  else  in  Paul's  epistles.  But  the  list  in  1  Cor. 
xii.  28  contains  some  terms  found  only  there,  and  the 
bishops  of  Phil.  i.  1  are  not  duplicated  in  his  genuine 
writings.  Moreover,  the  list  in  Eph.  iv.  11  does  not  point 
to  a  time  when  regular  officers  were  beginning  to  take  the 
place  of  the  charismatic  men  of  Paul's  day,  any  more  than 
the  reference  to  bishops  and  deacons  in  Phil.  i.  1.  Indeed, 
the  mention  of  apostles  and  prophets  first  of  all  in  the* 
passage  in  Ephesians  shows  that  that  time  had  not  yet 
come. 

i  1  Cor.  x.  32,  xii.  28,  xv.  9 ;  cf.  also  Gal.  i.  13.     2  phn.  m.  g.     a  Col.  i.  18, 24. 


THE    WORK    OF    PAUL  385 

So  far  as  the  author's  general  conception  of  Christianity 
is  concerned,  there  is  no  trace  in  it  of  un-Pauline  ideas. 
There  are,  to  be  sure,  fewer  positive  indications  of  Paul's 
thought  than  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  but  the  dif- 
ference in  this  respect  is  fully  accounted  for  by  the  dif- 
ference, of  purpose,  and  there  is  enough  genuine  Paulinism 
in  it  to  make  out  a  strong  case  for  its  authenticity.  Thus 
the  author  declares  that  salvation  is  solely  of  God,  and  is 
by  grace  alone,  not  by  works.1  Redemption  he  pictures 
in  genuine  Pauline  fashion  as  an  adoption  into  the  relation 
of  sonship,2  and  again  as  a  resurrection  with  Christ.3  The 
Christian  life  he  represents  as  the  life  of  a  new  man  in 
Christ.4  His  Christian  readers  he  speaks  of  as  temples  for 
God's  habitation,5  and  prays  that  Christ  may  dwell  in  their 
hearts  through  faith.6  The  law,  he  says  distinctly,  was 
done  away  by  Christ's  death  in  the  flesh;7  and  the  fact 
that  he  makes  use  of  this  truth  to  emphasize  the  oneness  of 
Jew  and  Gentile  within  the  church  rather  than  their  free- 
dom from  the  law,  is  due  to  the  special  purpose  which  he 
has  in  hand,  and  does  not  detract  in  the  least  from  the 
genuinely  Pauline  character  of  the  passage.  All  these 
utterances  are  fully  in  line  with  Paul's  thinking,  and 
though  they  are  less  clear  and  decisive  than  some  passages 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  they  may  fairly  be  re- 
garded as  sufficient,  in  the  absence  of  ideas  and  conceptions 
of  an  opposite  character,  to  confirm  the  explicit  claim  of 
the  letter  to  be  Paul's  own  production.8 

In  addition  to  the  epistles  just  considered,  Paul  wrote, 
during  his  Roman  captivity,  a  letter  to  his  beloved  Philip- 
pian  church,  thanking  them  for  gifts  which  they  had  sent 
him  by  the  hands  of  one  of  their  own  number,  Epaphro- 

1  Col.  ii.  5,  8,  10.         3  Eph.  ii.  5.  5  Eph.  ii.  22.  7  Eph.  ii.  14  sq. 

2  Eph.  i.  5.  4  Eph.  iv.  24.  6  Eph.  iii.  17. 

8  In  defence  of  the  genuineness  of  Ephesians,  see  especially  Hort,  I.e. 
p.  Ill  sq.  On  the  other  side  see  Holtzmann :  Kritik  der  Epheser-  und  Kolosser- 
briefe,  1872;  and  Von  Soden  in  the  Hand-Kommentar,  III.  1,  S.  86  sq.  For 
a  very  impartial  and  well-balanced  statement  of  the  case,  see  Jiilicher: 
Einleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament,  S.  94  sq.  The  great  majority  of  the 
critical  school  deny  the  authenticity  of  Ephesians,  even  when  they  accept  all 
the  other  epistles  except  the  pastorals.  See  the  list  of  names  in  Holtzinann's 
Einleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament,  3te  Auflage,  S.  257  sq. 


386  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

ditus,  and  explaining  the  latter's  return  to  Philippi.  The 
epistle  is  largely  of  a  personal  character  and  entirely  in- 
formal. It  lacks,  consequently,  that  careful  arrangement 
and  logical  sequence  of  thought  which  mark  most  of  Paul's 
epistles.  After  a  salutation  and  a  warm  expression  of  love 
for  his  readers  and  of  gratitude  for  their  Christian  charac- 
ter,1 the  apostle  tells  them  something  of  his  condition  and 
experiences  in  Rome  and  of  his  outlook  for  the  future.2 
He  then  passes  naturally  from  the  statement  of  his  belief 
that  his  life  will  be  spared  for  their  sake,  to  the  expression 
of  his  hope  that  whether  he  visits  them  again  or  not,  they 
will  continue  to  live  in  a  manner  worthy  of  the  Gospel  of 
Christ,  presenting  a  bold  and  united  front  to  their  adver- 
saries, avoiding  all  dissensions,  cherishing  each  other  in 
love,  laboring  each  for  his  brother's  good  with  the  spirit  of 
devotion  and  self-sacrifice  which  animated  Christ,  and  living 
in  all  respects  in  such  a  way  as  to  commend  Christianity  to 
those  about  them.3  He  then  tells  them  of  the  proposed  visit 
of  Timothy,  and  of  his  hope  that  he  may  himself  be  able  to 
come  to  them  in  the  near  future ;  explains  Epaphroditus' 
return  to  Philippi  and  commends  him  for  his  faithfulness  and 
devotion ; 4  and  seems  about  to  close,5  when  he  suddenly 
branches  off  into  a  severe  attack  upon  certain  men  whom 
he  characterizes  as  dogs  and  evil-workers,  and  whom  he 
brands  as  the  concision  in  contrast  to  the  followers  of  Christ, 
who  constitute  the  true  circumcision.6  After  denouncing 
them  and  comparing  his  own  faith  and  life  with  theirs,  he 
exhorts  the  Philippians  to  govern  their  lives  by  the  prin- 
ciples which  have  controlled  his,  setting  their  minds  on 
heavenly  things  and  conforming  their  conduct  to  the 

1  Phil.  i.  1-11.  «  Phil.  i.  27-ii.  18.  «  Phil.  iii.  1. 

2  Phil.  i.  12  sq.  4  Phil.  H.  19  sq. 

•  The  words  rA  avr&  ypd<t>civ  in  iii.  1  apparently  refer  not  to  what  pre- 
cedes, but  to  what  follows ;  and  as  there  is  nothing  like  the  latter  in  the  earlier 
chapters,  it  looks  as  if  Paul  were  referring  to  another  epistle  in  which  he  had 
written  of  the  same  subject.  It  is  certainly  quite  unlikely  that  during  all  the 
years  which  had  elapsed  since  he  first  preached  in  Philippi  he  had  not  once 
written  to  his  converts  there.  It  is  true  that  no  other  epistle  to  them  is  known 
to  us,  but  that  does  not  prove  that  none  was  written.  Undoubtedly,  Paul 
wrote  many  letters  of  which  we  have  no  knowledge.  It  is  perhaps  significant 
that  Polycarp  speaks  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  (c.  3)  of  "  letters  "  which 
Paul  had  written  to  them  (os  KCU  a.iruv  V[MV  eyptvj/ev 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  387 

character  of  Christ.1  After  this  digression  he  returns  to 
a  matter  which  was  very  likely  in  his  mind  while  he  was 
exhorting  his  readers  to  peace  and  unity  in  the  early  part  of 
his  letter,  and  addressing  certain  individuals  by  name,  he 
beseeches  them  to  be  reconciled  to  each  other.2  After  a 
final  exhortation  to  joy  and  peace  and  purity  in  thought 
and  life,3  he  thanks  them  heartily  for  their  gifts  and  closes 
with  salutations  and  a  benediction.4 

The  immediate  occasion  of  the  epistle  was  evidently 
Epaphroditus'  intended  return  to  Philippi,  and  the  letter 
is  primarily  a  commendation  of  Epaphroditus  himself  and 
an  expression  of  thanks  for  the  gifts  which  the  Philippians 
had  sent  by  him.  Epaphroditus  can  hardly  have  remained 
very  long  in  Rome,  for  otherwise  Paul  would  doubtless 
have  found  some  earlier  opportunity  of  expressing  his 
gratitude  to  his  benefactors.  He  seems  to  have  left  for 
home  much  sooner  than  he  had  expected  to  ;  for  Paul  takes 
pains  to  give  the  reasons  for  his  return,  and  to  explain 
that  it  is  not  because  of  any  lack  of  courage  or  devotion 
on  his  part.  It  seems  that  he  had  been  taken  ill,5  prob- 
ably very  soon  after  his  arrival  in  Rome,  and  had  almost 
lost  his  life.  Upon  his  recovery  he  naturally  longed  to 
see  his  home  and  his  friends  again,  and  so,  though  it  was 
apparently  his  original  intention  to  remain  much  longer 
in  Rome,  assisting  the  apostle  in  his  work  and  ministering 
to  his  needs  in  such  ways  as  he  could,  Paul  sent  him  back 
to  Philippi,  assuring  the  friends  whose  representative  he 
was,  that  he  had  done  his  duty  faithfully  and  well,  and 
exhorting  them  to  receive  him  with  all  honor.  Paul's 
treatment  of  Epaphroditus  reveals  most  beautifully  his 
tenderness  and  though tfuln ess  toward  his  companions  and 
disciples,  and  the  unselfishness  of  his  love  for  them.  The 
whole  epistle  in  fact,  with  its  warm  expression  of  affection, 
with  its  hearty  recognition  of  the  devotion  of  the  Philip- 
pians, and  with  its  unaffected  gratitude  for  their  liberality, 
combined  with  its  kindly  and  yet  frank  and  earnest  ad- 
monitions, furnishes  one  of  the  most  charming  revelations 

i  Phil.  iii.  2-21.  2  Phil.  iv.  I  sq.  8  Phil.  iv.  4r-9. 

4  Phil.  iv.  10-20,  21-23.  5  Phil.  ii.  25  sq. 


388  THE    APOSTOLIC   AGE 

we  have  of  the  apostle's  personal  character,  and  of  the 
closeness  of  the  ties  which  bound  him  and  his  converts 
together.  If  he  seems  in  some  of  his  epistles  sharp  and 
censorious  in  his  dealings  with  his  churches,  we  see  him 
in  this  one  overflowing  with  tenderness  and  appreciation, 
and  we  realize  how  much  they  all  were  to  him  and  how 
deeply  his  heart  was  enlisted  in  their  welfare,  and  we 
understand  better  than  we  otherwise  might  the  keenness 
with  which  he  must  feel  defection  or  faithlessness  on  the 
part  of  any  of  them. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  as  we  have  seen,  was 
primarily  a  note  of  thanks  and  of  commendation,  but  Paul 
had  evidently  learned  from  Epaphroditus,  or  from  some 
other  source,  of  the  existence  of  a  spirit  of  faction  or  jeal- 
ousy-within  the  church,  and  he  consequently  improved  the 
opportunity  to  urge  his  readers  to  peace  and  unity.  The 
difficulty,  whatever  it  was,  seems  not  to  have  been  very  seri- 
ous, but  it  prompted  the  apostle  to  emphasize  the  importance 
of  harmony  and  to  call  attention  to  the  example  of  Christ's 
humility  and  self-sacrifice,  in  a  striking  passage  l  which 
closely  resembles  some  of  his  utterances  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Colossians.  This  Christological  passage  has  commonly 
been  given  an  undue  amount  of  weight,  and  some  have 
seen  in  it  a  reason  for  denying  the  authenticity  of  the 
epistle.  But  such  a  use  of  it  is  entirely  unjustifiable,  for 
it  goes  beyond  Paul's  statement  in  2  Cor.  viii.  9  only  in 
form  of  expression,  and  there  is  nothing  un-Pauline  in  it. 
It  should  be  observed  also  that  the  passage  was  inserted  not 
with  a  dogmatic  but  with  a  practical  purpose.  It  was  not 
the  author's  aim  to  teach  Christology,  but  to  remind  his 
readers  of  the  example  of  Christ,  and  thus  to  inspire  them 
to  similar  love  and  sacrifice.  The  passage  thus  constitutes 
an  integral  part  of  the  epistle  arid  finds  its  explanation  in 
the  practical  aim  that  dictated  the  entire  chapter  in  which 
it  stands. 

The  polemical  passage  in  the  third  chapter  is  not  alto- 
gether easy  to  explain.  It  is  the  common  opinion  that  those 
against  whom  Paul  warns  his  readers  were  Jewish  Chris- 

i  Phil.  ii.  5  sq. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  389 

tians,  who  were  endeavoring  to  force  circumcision  and  the 
observance  of  the  Jewish  law  upon  the  Gentile  Christians 
either  of  Philippi  or  of  Rome,  as  they  had  tried  to  do 
years  before  in  Galatia.  But  it  is  certainly  strange  that 
such  Judaizers  should  suddenly  make  their  appearance, 
whether  in  Philippi  or  in  Rome,  so  many  years  after  Paul 
had  won  his  decisive  victory  over  them  in  Galatia,  when 
during  the  entire  interval  we  have  no  trace  of  their  ac- 
tivity in  any  part  of  his  missionary  field.  Our  knowledge 
of  Philippi  during  the  years  that  had  elapsed  since 
Paul  first  preached  Christianity  there  is,  to  be  sure,  very 
meagre,  and  we  do  not  know  all  the  forces  that  had  been 
at  work  in  the  interval.  But  it  is  certain  that  Paul  could 
not  have  commended  the  Philippians  in  such  glowing 
terms  if  they  had  been  already  led  astray  by  Judaizers, 
and  that  he  could  not  have  brought  his  epistle  to  a  close, 
as  he  seems  to  have  intended  to  do  at  the  beginning  of  the 
third  chapter,  without  warning  them  against  such  Judaizers, 
if  he  had  known  that  they  were  threatened  by  them.  It 
is  possible  that  he  learned  for  the  first  time  after  his  letter 
was  partly  written,  that  Judaizers  had  recently  made  their 
appearance  in  Philippi ;  but  their  sudden  and  unheralded 
activity  there  is,  to  say  the  least,  very  improbable.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  seems  even  more  difficult  to  account 
for  their  presence  in  Rome,  for  there  is  no  sign  that  they 
were  there  when  Paul  wrote  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans, 
and  the  utter  absence  of  any  reference  to  them  in  Colos- 
sians,  Ephesians,  and  Philemon  makes  their  presence  there 
when  those  letters  were  written  extremely  unlikely.  More- 
over, in  the  first  chapter  of  the  Philippian  epistle  itself, 
Paul  speaks  of  his  fellow-Christians  in  such  a  way  as  to 
preclude  utterly  the  supposition  that  there  were  any  active 
Judaizers  among  them  at  the  time  he  began  to  write.1 
All  the  probabilities  therefore  are  against  the  supposition 
that  they  were  at  work  in  Rome  when  the  third  chapter  was 
written. 

It  is  to  be  noticed  also  that  the  course  which  Paul  pursues 
in  the  chapter  in  question  is  not  that  which  we  should  ex 

1  Phil.  i.  14  sq. 


390  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

pect  him  to  follow,  if  his  purpose  was  to  fortify  his  readers 
against  Judaizing  influences  and  prevent  them  from  ac- 
cepting circumcision  and  observing  the  Jewish  law.  Abso- 
lutely nothing  is  said  about  the  effect  of  such  conduct 
upon  his  readers ;  about  their  separation  from  Christ  and 
the  loss  of  the  benefits  of  his  redemptive  work  which 
would  result  from  their  adoption  of  Judaistic  principles.1 
It  is  equally  difficult  to  suppose,  if  the  passionate  words 
in  iii.  2  sq.  were  prompted  by  a  fear  of  Judaistic  machina- 
tions, that  Paul  could  drop  the  subject  again  so  soon,  and 
devote  the  latter  part  of  his  epistle  to  matters  of  an  en- 
tirely different  character.  It  would  seem  that  the  sudden 
reappearance  of  an  enemy  which  had  caused  him  such 
distress  and  anxiety  a  dozen  years  before,  and  over  which 
he  had  gained  a  decisive  and  apparently  lasting  victory, 
must  have  stirred  him  so  deeply  and  filled  him  with  such 
terrible  forebodings  as  to  make  it  impossible  for  him  to 
revert  so  easily  to  matters  of  comparatively  little  impor- 
tance, and  to  write  of  them  in  a  bright  and  cheerful 
vein,  and  finally  to  close  his  epistle  with  evident  joy  and 
gratitude. 

In  view  of  these  facts,  it  seems  better  to  assume,  with 
Lipsius 2  and  others,  that  Paul  had  in  mind  in  writing 
Phil.  iii.  2  sq.  not  Judaizers  or  Jewish  Christians,  but  un- 
believing Jews.  It  is  true  that  the  language  of  the  passage, 
read  in  the  light  of  his  earlier  experiences,  naturally  sug- 
gests Judaizers.  But  in  2  Cor.  xi.  he  employs  similar 
language  in  defending  himself  against  Jewish  Christian 
opponents  who  were  not  Judaizers ;  and  there  is  no  reason 
in  the  present  case,  where  there  is  a  notable  absence  of  any 
reference  to  their  Christian  profession,  and  to  the  fact  that 
they  claimed  to  be  apostles  or  ministers  of  Christ,  why  the 
language  may  not  refer  to  unconverted  Jews.  There  is  a 
possible  suggestion  that  the  latter  were  actually  in  Paul's 
mind  in  the  sixth  verse  of  the  third  chapter,  where  he 
cites,  as  the  only  instance  of  his  zeal,  his  persecution  of 
the  Christian  church,  which  could  hardly  tend  to  strengthen 

1  Compare  with  this  passage  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians. 

2  In  the  Hand-Kommentar,  II.  2,  S.  217. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  391 

his  case,  if  those  with  whom  he  was  comparing  himself 
were  Christians.1 

If  the  passage  be  taken  to  apply  to  Jews,  instead  of 
being  entirely  out  of  line  with  all  that  precedes  and  fol- 
lows, as  it  certainly  is  if  it  refers  to  Judaizers,  it  can  be 
shown  to  be  in  close  connection  with  other  parts  of  the 
epistle,  and  to  be  in  harmony  with  the  general  course  of 
the  apostle's  thought.  We  know  from  i.  28  sq.2  that  the 
Philippians  at  the  time  Paul  wrote  were  exposed  to  perse- 
cution,3 and  it  was  his  evident  desire  throughout  his  epis- 
tle to  encourage  them  in  the  face  of  the  trials  which  they 
were  called  upon  to  endure,  and  to  strengthen  their  Chris- 
tian faith,  which  was  subjected  to  the  strain  not  of  their 
own  sufferings  alone  but  also  of  Paul's,  in  whose  imprison- 
ment and  threatened  death  it  might  well  seem  that  the 
cause  of  Christianity  was  doomed  to  perish.  Thus,  almost 
at  the  beginning  of  his  epistle,4  Paul  assures  them  that  his 
own  imprisonment  was  contributing  to  the  progress  of  the 
Gospel,  and  that  the  brethren  in  Rome  were  becoming 
bolder  and  more  zealous  than  ever  under  the  influence 
of  his  bonds.  And  he  expresses  his  belief  that  he  will 
yet  be  released  and  be  enabled  to  carry  on  his  work  for 
the  benefit  of  his  converts ;  but  he  gives  utterance  at  the 
same  time  to  his  confidence  that  Christ  will  in  any  case 
be  magnified,  whether  by  his  life  or  by  his  death.  It  was 
doubtless  with  the  opposition  of  the  enemies  of  Christ  in 
mind,  that  he  laid  so  much  stress  upon  the  importance 
of  healing  all  divisions  and  of  preserving  peace  and  unity 
within  the  church,  and  that  he  repeated  so  frequently  and 

1  Paul's  reference  to  his  persecution  of  the  Christian  church  is  introduced 
here  in  a  connection  very  different  from  that  in  which  it  occurs  in  Gal.  i.  13. 
In  the  latter  passage  Paul  was  concerned  to  show  that  he  received  his  Gospel 
not  from  man,  but  from  God,  and  he  therefore  cited  his  attitude  toward  the 
church  up  to  the  time  of  his  conversion,  to  show  how  far  he  was  from  getting 
his  Christianity  from  the  disciples. 

2  Cf.  also  Phil.  ii.  15  and  19. 

3  Though  the  enemies  of  the  Philippians  may  have  heen  for  the  most  part 
heathen,  as  they  seem  to  have  been  in  Thessalonica  when  Paul  wrote  his 
epistles  to  that  church  ten  years  before,  there  is  no  reason  for  denying  that 
the  hostility  of  the  Jews  was  also  making  itself  felt ;  and  for  aught  we  know 
to  the  contrary,  it  may  have  been  largely  from  their  machinations  that  the 
Philippians  were  now  suffering. 

4  Phil.  i.  12  sq. 


392  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

with  such  emphasis  his  exhortations  to  rejoice  at  all  times 
and  under  all  circumstances.1  The  same  consideration 
very  likely  had  something  to  do  with  his  reference  to 
Christ's  endurance  even  unto  death,  and  to  the  glory 
which  he  received  as  his  reward.2  Read  in  the  light  of 
this  idea,  the  bearing  of  the  passage  with  which  we  are 
dealing  becomes  very  plain.  It  is  possible  that  the  sudden 
outbreak  of  passion  in  iii.  2  was  caused  by  some  new 
manifestation  of  hostility  to  himself  on  the  part  of  the 
unbelieving  Jews,  or  by  some  new  evidence  of  the  effect 
of  that  hostility  upon  his  situation  and  prospects ;  for  it 
was  to  their  enmity  that  he  owed  his  imprisonment  and 
that  he  was  yet  to  owe  his  execution.  But  however  that 
may  be,  it  was  but  natural,  with  his  own  sufferings  and 
the  sufferings  of  the  Philippians  in  mind,  due  very  likely 
in  both  instances  to  the  same  Jewish  hatred  of  Christian- 
ity, that  he  should  give  vent  to  his  feelings,  and  should 
not  only  emphasize  the  superiority  of  Christianity  to  Juda- 
ism and  contrast  the  true  spiritual  circumcision  of  the 
Christian  with  the  fleshly  concision  of  the  Jew,  but  also  com- 
pare his  own  devotion  with  the  devotion  of  those  who  were 
persecuting  him  as  a  renegade  and  apostate,  and  dwell 
upon  the  fact  that  he  possessed  all  and  more  than  they 
were  boasting  of,  but  had  risen  above  it  and  counted  it 
as  naught,  in  order  that  he  might  attain  to  the  excellency 
of  the  knowledge  of  Jesus  Christ  his  Lord.  The  passage 
has  the  appearance  almost  of  a  soliloquy,  for  it  is  only  of 
his  own  experience  that  Paul  speaks ;  and  yet  it  was  en- 
tirely natural  under  the  circumstances  for  him  to  express 
himself  thus,  and  his  words  were  certainly  calculated  to 
strengthen  the  Philippians  and  to  inspire  them  to  press 
on  toward  the  same  goal. 

The  exhortation  to  be  of  like  mind  and  to  imitate  him  in 
his  Christian  struggle  follows  easily  upon  Paul's  descrip- 
tion of  his  own  life,  as  does  also  the  warning  to  avoid  the 
conduct  of  those  corrupt  and  carnal-minded  disciples  whose 
hearts  were  more  engrossed  in  earthly  than  in  heavenly 

1  Phil.  ii.  17  sq.,  iii.  1,  iv.  4. 

2  Phil.  ii.  3  sq. ;  cf.  also  ii.  10,  iii.  11,  20  sq. 


THE   WOBK  OF   PAUL  393 

things  and  who  possibly  made  use  of  Paul's  own  doctrine 
of  freedom  to  justify  their  libertinism  and  antinomianism.1 
Paul's  agitation  in  speaking  of  them  and  his  sorrow  even 
unto  tears  are  best  explained  by  the  supposition  that  they 
claimed  thus  to  be  carrying  out  his  principles,  and  to  be 
consequently  his  true  disciples,2  as  we  know  that  many  did 
in  his  own  and  subsequent  days. 

The  authenticity  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  is  now 
so  generally  recognized  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  consider 
it  at  any  length.  There  is,  in  fact,  nothing  in  the  epistle 
which  need  cause  doubt  as  to  its  genuineness.  Its  style 
is  thoroughly  Pauline,  and  the  only  doctrinal  passages 
in  it3  are  in  entire  accord  with  the  apostle's  positions 
as  known  from  his  other  writings.  It  is  simply  incon- 
ceivable that  any  one  else  would  or  could  have  produced 
in  his  name  a  letter  in  which  no  doctrinal  or  ecclesi- 
astical motive  can  be  discovered,  and  in  which  the  per- 
sonal element  so  largely  predominates  and  the  character  of 
the  man  and  of  the  apostle  is  revealed  with  so  great  vivid- 
ness and  fidelity.  The  epistle  deserves  to  rank  alongside 
of  Galatians,  Corinthians,  and  Romans  as  an  undoubted 
product  of  Paul's  pen,  and  as  a  co-ordinate  standard  by 
which  to  test  the  genuineness  of  other  and  less  certain 
writings. 

The  epistles  which  we  have  been  considering,  especially 
that  to  the  Philippians,  throw  considerable  light  upon 
Paul's  condition  in  Rome.  Though  a  prisoner,  bound 
night  and  day  by  a  chain,  according  to  Roman  custom,  to 
the  soldier  who  guarded  him,4  he  had  made  good  use  of 
the  opportunities  which  were  afforded  him  for  intercourse 
with  those  about  him  5  and  had  thus  succeeded  by  converse 

1  Cf.Rom.  vi.  1  sq. ;  1  Cor.  vi.  12  sq. ;  Gal.  v.  13  sq. ;  Eph.  v.  1.  sq. ;  Col.  iii.  1  sq. 

2  Cf .  Lightfoot's  Commentary,  in  loc. 

It  will  hardly  do  to  identify,  as  is  commonly  done,  the  enemies  of  the  cross 
of  Christ  in  iii.  18  with  those  who  are  attacked  in  iii.  2  sq.,  for  Paul's  vehe- 
ment words  in  vs.  18  seem  to  imply  a  fear  that  the  Philippians  may  be  influenced 
by  those  whom  he  there  denounces  and  may  imitate  their  conduct;  but  there 
could  certainly  be  no  danger  that  they  would  renounce  their  Christianity  and 
become  Jews. 

3  Phil.  ii.  5  sq.,  iii.  8  sq. 

4  Acts  xxviii.  1(>,  20;  Eph.  vi.  20;  Phil.  i.  7,  13, 14,  17,  etc. 
6  Cf.  Eph.  vi.  19;  Col.  i.  29,  iv.  3,  11. 


894  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

with  his  guards,  who  relieved  each  other  in  succession,  in 
making  the  name  of  Christ  known  throughout  the  whole 
praetorium,1  that  is,  throughout  the  whole  body  of  imperial 
troops  under  the  command  of  the  praetorian  prefect,  to 
whose  custody  Paul  had  been  committed.  His  bonds  were 
thus  redounding  to  the  advantage  of  Christianity  by  the 
spread  of  a  knowledge  of  the  Gospel  which  was  resulting 
from  his  association  with  those  about  him,  and  which 
went  so  far  that  even  some  members  of  the  imperial  house- 
hold, probably  court  officials  or  servants,  had  been  won  to 
Christ.2  His  imprisonment,  moreover,  was  enhancing  the 
zeal  and  activity  of  other  disciples  in  Rome,  and  was  thus 
indirectly  as  well  as  directly  contributing  to  the  advance 
of  the  cause.  Not  all  of  those  who  were  preaching  the 
Gospel  there  were  in  sympathy  with  Paul  and  friendly 
to  him.  Some  were  moved  rather  by  party  spirit  than  by 
a  sincere  desire  to  promote  the  cause  of  Christ,  and  were 
striving  to  outdo  Paul  and  show  themselves  greater  mis- 
sionaries than  he.  But  in  spite  of  that  he  rejoiced  in  the 
labors  of  all  of  them,  whether  his  friends  or  his  enemies, 
for  by  all  of  them  Christ  was  proclaimed.3  There  can  be 
little  doubt  that  those  who  preached  in  a  spirit  of  unfriend- 
liness toward  Paul  belonged  to  the  Jewish  wing  of  the 
church,  whose  existence  we  find  testified  to  in  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans.  But  the  fact  that  Paul  rejoiced  in  their 
labors  shows  clearly  enough  that  they  were  not  Judaizers. 
They  were  apparently  unfriendly  to  Paul  not  on  account 
of  any  radical  difference  of  principle  or  of  doctrine,  but 
because  the  great  work  which  he  had  been  doing  among 
the  Gentiles  in  other  parts  of  the  world,  and  was  now 
doing  in  Rome,  was  overshadowing  the  work  which  they 
and  others  were  accomplishing  among  the  Jews,  and  was 
pushing  the  Jewish  wing  of  the  church  more  and  more  into 
the  background.  It  was  not  that  they  wished  to  impose 
Judaism  upon  all  Gentile  Christians,  or  that  they  wished 
to  exclude  the  latter  from  the  church,  but  that  they 

1  Phil.  i.  13.    On  the  meaning  of  the  word  "  praetorium,"  see  Lightfoot's 
Commentary,  p.  99  sq. 

2  Phil.  iv.  22.  «  Phil.  i.  18. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  395 

were  impatient  and  jealous  of  their  growing  numbers  and 
supremacy.  They  were  redoubling  their  efforts  among 
their  own  countrymen  simply  in  order  to  outdo  Paul,  and 
to  check  the  increasing  disparity  between  the  two  wings 
of  the  Roman  church. 

Paul's  situation  under  such  circumstances  must  have 
been  peculiarly  trying.  He  was  not  the  founder  of  the 
Roman  church,  and  he  was  not  at  home  in  Rome.  He  had 
come  in  as  a  stranger  long  after  Christianity  had  made  a 
place  for  itself  there,  and  highly  as  he  was  esteemed  arid 
honored  by  perhaps  a  large  majority  of  the  Christians  of 
the  city,  he  realized  that  whatever  success  he  might  have 
in  winning  converts  would  inevitably  be  compared  with 
the  success  of  those  who  were  on  the  ground  before  him, 
either  to  his  own  or  to  their  disparagement,  and  that  the 
greater  the  work  accomplished  by  him,  the  greater  would 
be  the  jealousy  and  hostility  engendered  in  many  quarters. 
He  was  in  some  sense  an  outsider,  and  there  could  not  be 
that  same  oneness  of  interest  and  sympathy  between  him- 
self and  those  about  him  that  there  was  in  his  own  churches 
and  among  his  own  converts.  There  is  evidently  a  touch 
of  resignation  in  the  declaration  of  Phil.  i.  18.  Paul  asserts 
that  he  rejoices  in  the  proclamation  of  the  Gospel  even  by 
his  rivals,  but  his  joy  is  tinged  with  a  natural  and  pardon- 
able sadness  as  he  realizes  not  only  that  the  work  which  he 
sees  going  on  about  him  is  not  his  work,  but  also  that  the 
greater  its  success,  the  more  will  his  own  influence  be  cur- 
tailed and  the  supremacy  of  other  men  and  of  other  in- 
terests be  established.  It  is  true  that  there  were  many 
in  Rome  who  were  preaching  Christ  in  a  spirit  of  loy- 
alty to  Paul,1  but  even  they,  so  far  as  they  did  not  owe 
their  Christian  faith  to  him,  must  have  been  less  concerned 
for  his  honor  and  for  the  supremacy  of  his  peculiar  princi- 
ples than  his  own  disciples.  And  so  it  is  not  strange  that 
he  felt  lonely  in  Rome ;  and  it  is  hardly  to  be  wondered 
at  that  in  spite  of  his  many  friends  in  the  city,  he  should 
complain,  in  writing  to  the  Philippians,  that  they  all  sought 
their  own  and  not  the  things  of  Jesus  Christ.2  He  did  not 

i  Phil.  i.  14  sq.  2  Phil.  ji.  21. 


396  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

mean  to  accuse  them  of  self-seeking  and  of  faithlessness  to 
Christ,  but  their  lack  of  interest  in  his  especial  work  which 
lay  so  largely  outside  of  Rome,  and  their  absorption  in 
their  own  labors,  made  him  feel  his  isolation  keenly,  and 
made  him  long  for  that  undivided  sympathy  and  devotion 
which  he  had  enjoyed  in  his  own  churches,  and  which  had 
served  to  bind  all  his  converts  closely  together,  even 
though  they  dwelt  widely  apart.  The  memory  of  the 
oneness  of  interest  that  had  existed  between  himself  and 
his  beloved  Philippians  must  have  had  much  to  do  under 
these  circumstances  with  the  tone  of  affection  and  of  con- 
fidence which  so  strongly  marks  his  letter  to  them. 

The  situation  in  which  Paul  found  himself  in  Rome  was 
prophetic  of  the  subsequent  development  of  the  Roman 
church.  Though  his  name  was  always  held  in  honor,  and 
though  he  even  came  to  be  looked  upon  as  the  joint  founder 
with  Peter  of  the  church  of  Rome,  the  development  of 
Christianity  there  went  largely  its  own  independent  way, 
and  the  influence  of  his  principles  was  little  felt.  He  may 
have  realized  this.  He  may  have  seen  that  though  he  was 
the  great  apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  there  was  arising  upon 
Gentile  soil,  in  the  very  capital  of  the  world,  a  form  of 
Christianity  which  owed  little  to  him,  and  which  bore  a  char- 
acter widely  different  from  his.  And  it  may  have  been  this 
that  led  him  to  think  of  the  possible  continuance  of  his 
life  as  profitable  not  so  much  for  the  world  or  the  church 
at  large  as  for  his  beloved  Philippians.1 

And  yet  though  Paul's  epistle  reveals  a  consciousness  of 
isolation  and  of  separateness  from  those  about  him,  he  was 
not  without  intimate  friends  and  companions.  Timothy 
was  with  him  when  he  wrote  to  the  Colossians,  to  Philemon, 
and  to  the  Philippians ;  Tychicus  of  Asia  and  the  Colos- 
sian  slave  Onesimus,  when  he  wrote  the  earlier  letters.2 
But  the  last  two  went  East  immediately  thereafter,  and 
were  doubtless  absent  when  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians 
was  written.  Aristarchus  of  Thessalonica,  who  had  made 

JPhil.  i.24sq. 

2  Tychicus  is  mentioned  in  Eph.  vi.  21  and  Col.  iv.  7;  Onesimus  in  Col.  iv 
9  and  Philemon  10. 


THE  WORK  OF   PAUL  397 

the  journey  from  Csesarea  to  Rome  in  Paul's  company, 
was  still  with  him  when  he  wrote  to  the  Colossians  and 
Philemon,1  as  were  Mark,  Luke,  Demas,  Epaphras  of 
Colossse,  and  Jesus  Justus,  a  Jewish  Christian  otherwise 
unknown  to  us.2  But  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians 
only  Timothy  and  the  Philippian  Epaphroditus  are  men- 
tioned by  name.  Onesiphorus  of  Ephesus  evidently  did 
not  come  to  Rome  until  after  Timothy's  departure  for  the 
East ; 3  and  the  same  is  possibly  true  of  Crescens  and  Titus, 
who  left  him  again  before  the  letter  to  Timothy  was  writ- 
ten.4 Eubulus,  Pudens,  Linus,  and  Claudia,  with  whom 
Timothy  was  personally  acquainted,5  were  very  likely 
already  Paul's  friends,  but  their  names  seem  to  indi- 
cate that  they  belonged  to  Rome,  and  they  were  therefore 
probably  not  of  the  number  of  his  old  companions  and 
disciples.  It  is  true  that  Luke,  the  beloved  physician, 
who  was  with  him  when  he  wrote  to  the  Colossians  and 
Philemon,  was  still  at  his  side  when  he  wrote  to  Timothy ; 6 
and  that  Demas,  who  was  also  in  his  company  at  that  earlier 
time,  did  not  leave  Rome  until  after  the  Philippian  epistle 
was  written.7  It  is  true  also  that  the  "  brethren  "  from 
whom  Paul  sends  greetings  in  Phil.  iv.  21,  and  whom  he 
distinguishes  from  "  all  the  saints,"  might  be  supposed  to 
include  them,  as  well  as  others  of  his  old-time  companions. 
But  the  terms  in  which  he  speaks  of  those  about  him  in 
Phil.  ii.  21  make  it  improbable  that  any  such  companions 
were  on  the  ground.  At  any  rate,  it  could  hardly  be  true 
of  them,  as  it  might  be  of  the  Romans,  that  they  were  not 
interested  in  Paul's  work  in  that  part  of  the  world  whence 
they  themselves  had  come.  It  seems  best  therefore  to 
interpret  the  "brethren"  of  Phil.  iv.  21  as  referring  to 
Roman  Christians  who  were  assisting  Paul  in  his  work, 
and  to  conclude  that  Luke  was  temporarily  absent,  and 
that  Demas  was  either  absent  or  was  already  beginning  to 
display  that  lack  of  devotion  which  led  him  finally  to  desert 
Paul  entirely ; 8  while  the  other  old  friends  who  were  with 

1  Col.  iv.  10 ;  Philemon  24.  3  2  Tim.  i.  16.  5  2  Tim.  iv.  21. 

2  Col.  iv.  11  sq.  4  2  Tim.  iv.  10.  6  2  Tim.  iv.  11. 

7  For  otherwise  Timothy  would  have  known  of  his  departure. 

8  2  Tim.  iv.  10. 


398  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

him  when  he  wrote  Colossians  and  Philemon,  but  whose 
names  are  mentioned  neither  in  Philippians  nor  in  2  Tim- 
othy, had  left  the  city  permanently. 

That  Paul  should  feel  much  alone  under  these  cir- 
cumstances is  not  to  be  wondered  at.  Friendly  as  many 
of  the  Roman  Christians  might  be,  and  actively  as  they 
might  co-operate  with  him  in  his  Christian  work,  they 
were  not  like  the  companions  whom  he  had  with  him 
during  his  great  missionary  campaigns.  They  knew  him 
only  as  a  prisoner,  and  they  could  hardly  regard  him  with 
that  enthusiastic  devotion  and  homage  which  were  shown 
him  by  his  friends  and  disciples  in  his  days  of  battle 
and  of  triumph.  Paul  was  large-hearted  and  broad- 
minded  enough  to  rejoice  in  the  extension  of  the  Gospel 
in  Rome,  even  though  his  own  share  in  the  work  was  small, 
and  even  though  some  of  it  was  done  by  those  who  regarded 
him  with  jealousy  and  hostility ;  but  he  was  at  the  same 
time  human  enough  to  feel  keenly  the  contrast  between 
his  present  and  his  former  position.  So  long  as  he  remained 
where  he  was,  he  would  do  his  part  in  spreading  the  name 
of  Christ  as  he  had  always  done ;  he  would  be  faithful  and 
bold  and  zealous  even  in  his  bonds,  and  he  would  rejoice 
in  the  thought  that  his  own  confinement,  which  prevented 
him  from  carrying  on  his  great  work  in  the  world  at  large, 
was  yet  bearing  fruit  in  the  narrower  and  more  limited 
circle  of  the  camp  and  the  court,  and  was  indirectly  pro- 
moting the  cause  of  Christ  throughout  the  city.  But  he 
could  not  do  otherwise  than  regret  the  loss  of  the  tremen- 
dous personal  influence  which  he  had  been  accustomed  to 
wield  wherever  he  went  and  sigh  for  the  days  when  he 
was  himself  in  the  van  of  the  battle,  the  leader  to  whom 
all  looked  and  whom  alone  all  followed. 

Of  the  remainder  of  Paul's  life  we  know  very  little. 
It  is  true  that  there  exist  three  more  epistles  bearing  his 
name,  —  two  addressed  to  Timothy,  and  one  to  Titus, 
which,  if  they  be  genuine,  involve  his  release  from  his 
Roman  imprisonment  and  his  return  to  the  East,  and  from 
which,  therefore,  much  added  information  may  be  gathered 
concerning  the  closing  years  of  his  life.  But  the  authen- 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  399 

ticity  of  these  epistles  has  been  widely  questioned,  and 
there  is  grave  reason  to  doubt  whether  they  are  actually 
Paul's.1  It  is  to  be  noticed,  first  of  all,  that  the  external 
testimony  to  their  genuineness  is  far  weaker  than  in  the 
case  of  any  of  his  other  letters.  There  are  traces  of  an 
acquaintance  with  them  in  Ignatius  and  possibly  in  Poly- 
carp,  but  in  no  other  writings  until  after  the  middle  of 
the  second  century;  and  not  until  the  time  of  Irenseus, 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  and  the  Muratorian  Fragment  are 
they  expressly  included  in  the  number  of  Paul's  epistles.2 
They  are  the  only  letters  bearing  his  name  which  are 
not  found  in  the  New  Testament  of  Marcion,  the  earliest 
canon  known  to  us,  formed  in  the  second  quarter  of  the 
second  century.  As  Marcion  had  no  hesitation  in  expur- 
gating the  Pauline  epistles  when  he  found  anything  that 
did  not  suit  him,  the  fact  that  there  are  anti-heretical 
passages  in  these  epistles  does  not  account  for  his  omission 
of  them,  if  he  knew  them  to  be  Paul's. 

In  the  second  place,  the  tone  employed  by  the  author  in 
addressing  Timothy  and  Titus  is  not  what  we  should  ex- 
pect from  Paul.  They  had  been  for  many  }^ears  beloved 
and  trusted  disciples  and  intimate  friends  and  companions, 
and  yet  Paul  finds  it  necessary  to  emphasize  his  apostle- 
ship,  to  defend  his  character  and  authority,  to  assert  that 
he  is  not  lying,  just  as  if  he  were  addressing  strangers  or 
even  enemies  such  as  he  had  to  deal  with  in  Galatia  and 
Corinth.3  On  the  other  hand,  the  instructions  which  he 
gives,  and  the  warnings  and  exhortations  which  he  ad- 
dresses to  Timothy  and  Titus,  are  of  a  kind  entirely 
suited  to  immature  and  untried  disciples,  or  to  the  com- 
mon multitude  of  Christians,  but  certainly  not  at  all 
suited  to  men  such  as  they  had  proved  themselves  to 
be.  The  author  instructs  them,  especially  Timothy,  in 
regard  to  the  most  elementary  duties  of  the  Christian  life 
and  the  most  elementary  truths  of  Christianity  ;  he  warns 

1  In  defence  of  the  authenticity  of  the  pastoral  epistles,  see  especially  Weiss : 
Einleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament,  S.  286  sq.  (Eug.  Trans.,  Vol.  I.  p.  374  sq.). 

2  Tatian,  writing  possibly  a  decade  or  two  earlier,  accepts  Titus  as  genuine 
(according  to  Jerome  in  his  Preface  to  Titus). 

3  1  Tim.  i.  12  sq.,  ii.  7;  2  Tim.  i  3,  11.    Compare  the  greetings  of  all  three 
of  the  epistles  with  the  opening  of  the  Epistle  to  Philemon. 


400  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

them  against  vice  and  lust,  and  urges  them  repeatedly  to 
be  honest,  faithful,  sober,  and  pure,  as  if  he  were  greatly  in 
doubt  not  only  as  to  their  official  but  also  as  to  their  private 
character.1  It  looks  very  much  as  if  they  were  simply  lay 
figures,  and  the  letters  were  intended  not  for  them,  but  for 
the  church  at  large.  Such  a  course  was  entirely  natural 
in  a  later  writer  to  whom  Timothy  and  Titus  were  only 
names,  but  not  in  Paul,  whose  loved  friends  and  disciples 
they  were. 

In  the  third  place,  the  style  of  the  epistles  is  un-Pauline. 
That  Pauline  words  and  phrases  occur  not  infrequently 
is  quite  true.  There  are,  in  fact,  certain  superficial  resem- 
blances to  the  language  of  Paul.  But  the  resemblances 
are  not  such  as  to  indicate  identity  of  authorship.  They 
might  naturally  occur  in  the  writings  of  any  one  familiarly 
acquainted  with  his  epistles.  The  differences  over  against 
the  superficial  likenesses  are  so  extensive,  so  radical,  and 
so  thoroughgoing,  that  it  seems  impossible  to  account  for 
them,  except  on  the  supposition  that  the  letters  are,  at 
least  in  their  present  form,  the  work  of  another  than 
Paul.  The  divergence  in  style  appears  not  so  much  in 
the  vocabulary,  though  there  are  striking  differences  there, 
as  in  the  use  of  peculiar  phrases  and  combinations  of 
words,  in  the  displacement  of  favorite  Pauline  forms  of 
expression  by  others  of  a  totally  different  kind,  in  the 
employment  of  particles,  in  the  construction  of  sentences 
and  periods,  and  finally  in  the  total  lack  of  that  compres- 
sion of  thought  and  of  that  vigor  of  expression  which  are 
so  characteristic  of  Paul  as  he  appears  in  all  the  other 
epistles  that  bear  his  name.  The  attempt  is  frequently 
made  to  break  the  force  of  this  argument  by  calling  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that  the  pastorals  were  written  at  a  later 
period  in  Paul's  life  than  any  of  the  other  epistles,  and 
when  he  was  already  an  old  man.  But  how  little  there  is 
in  such  a  consideration  appears  when  we  realize  that  at 
latest  they  cannot  have  been  written  more  than  three  or 
four  years  after  the  letter  to  the  Philippians,  and  that  the 

1  Cf.  1  Tim.  i.  19,  iv.  12,  vi.  11 ;  2  Tim.  i.  6  sq.,  ii.  1  sq.,  22,  iii.  14  sq. ;  Titus 
ii.7. 


THE   WORK   OF    PAUL  401 

differences  between  them  and  the  latter  are  immeasurably 
greater  than  between  the  latter  and  Paul's  earliest  epistles, 
which  were  written  a  decade  before.  We  know  Paul's 
literary  style  very  well,  for  we  have  it  exhibited  in  ten 
epistles  covering  a  period  of  a  dozen  years,  and  its  essen- 
tial features,  in  spite  of  modifications  due  to  differing 
subject-matter  and  circumstances,  appear  in  all  of  those 
epistles,  but  are  entirely  lacking  in  the  pastorals.1  Closely 
related  to  the  matter  of  language  and  style  is  the  striking 
lack  of  order  and  arrangement  which  characterizes  the 
letters  with  which  we  are  dealing.  Whatever  else  Paul 
may  have  been,  he  was  not  a  loose  and  illogical  thinker 
and  writer.  Even  in  his  most  hastily  written  and  most 
informal  epistles,  his  ideas  bear  a  most  intimate  relation  to 
each  other.  But  in  the  pastorals,  especially  in  1  Timothy, 
we  have  for  the  most  part  a  mere  collection  of  detached 
passages,  betraying  a  writer  largely  lacking  in  the  direct- 
ness, incisiveness,  and  grasp  which  were  so  characteristic 
of  Paul. 

In  the  fourth  place,  the  attitude  of  the  author  toward 
false  teachers  and  their  teachings  should  be  noticed.  The 
difficulty  is  not  so  much  with  the  heresies  attacked,  as 
with  the  way  in  which  the  author  attacks  them.  It  is 
true  that  many  of  the  things  said  point  to  the  existence 
of  Gnosticism,  at  least  in  an  incipient  form,2  but  though 
this  suggests  a  later  date  for  the  epistles,  it  does  not 
prove  it ;  for  it  is  possible  that  such  Gnostic  ideas  had 
made  their  appearance  in  some  parts  of  the  church  even 
before  the  death  of  Paul.  The  Epistle  to  the  Colossians, 
for  instance,  shows  that  heretical  tendencies  may  have 
existed  at  that  early  date  of  which  we  have  no  hint  in  any 
other  sources.  But  though  we  cannot,  with  many  critics, 
draw  a  conclusion  adverse  to  Pauline  authorship  from  the 
existence  of  such  heresies  as  we  find  alluded  to,  we  are 
compelled  to  see  in  the  way  they  are  handled  by  the  author 

1  The  best  and  most  exhaustive  treatment  of  the  style  of  the  pastoral 
epistles  is  to  be  found  in  Holtzmaim's  Pastomlbricfe  (1880),  S.  84  sq. 

2  It  is  possible  that  the  reference  in  1  Tim.  vi.  20  (avridtceis  TTJS  <f>ev8uvv/ju)v 
yvuvews}  is  to  the  "  Antitheses  "  of  Marcion.    But  if  so,  the  passage  is  a  later 
addition. 

2D 


402  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

a  convincing  proof  that  he  was  not  Paul.  He  evi- 
dently had  a  very  confused  idea  of  the  nature  of  the 
heresies  which  he  denounces.  His  references  to  them  are 
extremely  vague,  and  he  apparently  fails  to  perceive  that 
there  is  any  real  distinction  between  tendencies  of  an 
exactly  opposite  character.  Whether  the  false  teachers 
are  antinomian  or  ascetic,1  whether  they  are  spiritualistic 
or  legalistic,2  the  author  does  not  treat  them  as  if  there 
were  any  vital  difference  between  them.  They  are  all 
alike  given  to  foolish  and  ignorant  questionings,  disputes 
about  words,  strifes  about  the  law,  fables,  genealogies,  and 
profane  babblings.  Such  indiscriminate  denunciations  are 
certainly  not  what  we  should  expect  from  a  man  like 
Paul,  who  was  an  uncommonly  clear-headed  dialectician, 
accustomed  to  draw  fine  distinctions,  and  whose  penetra- 
tion and  ability  to  discover  and  display  the  vital  point  of 
difference  between  himself  and  an  antagonist  have  never 
been  surpassed.  Those  who  ascribe  to  Paul  the  references 
to  false  teaching  which  occur  in  the  pastoral  epistles  do 
him  a  serious  injustice. 

But  it  is  not  simply  the  author's  imperfect  apprehension 
of  the  significance  of  the  heresies  which  he  attacks,  that 
makes  it  difficult  to  identify  him  with  Paul ;  his  polemical 
method  is  equally  un-Pauline.  Instead  of  demonstrating 
the  falseness  of  the  positions  taken  by  the  heretical  teachers, 
he  simply  denounces  them ;  and  instead  of  exhibiting  his 
own  Gospel  and  showing  its  bearing  upon  the  questions 
in  dispute,  he  simply  appeals  to  the  fact  that  a  deposit  of 
faith  has  been  handed  down  as  a  safeguard  against  all 
heresies  of  whatever  sort.  The  contrast  between  this  kind 
of  procedure  and  that  which  Paul  follows  in  Galatians, 
Corinthians,  Romans,  and  Colossians,  in  all  the  epistles, 
in  fact,  in  which  he  has  to  deal  with  heresy,  is  most 
striking.  The  spirit  that  actuates  the  pastorals  is  not 
the  spirit  of  Paul,  but  the  spirit  of  2  John  and  of 
Polycarp. 

In  the  fifth  place,  and  most  decisive  of  all,  the  Chris- 
tianity of  the  pastoral  epistles  is  not  the  Christianity 

1 1  Tim.  i.  4  sq.,  iv.  3  sq.  2  2  Tim.  ii.  18 ;  Titus  i.  10-14,  etc. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  403 

of  Paul.  It  is  true  that  there  are  some  Pauline  ideas 
and  passages,1  but  they  are  altogether  exceptional.  For 
the  most  part  there  is  no  trace  whatever  of  the  great  funda- 
mental truth  of  Paul's  Gospel,  —  death  unto  the  flesh  and 
life  in  the  Spirit,  —  although  in  many  cases  we  might  fairly 
look  for  a  reference  to  it,  especially  over  against  the  false 
teachers.  We  should  expect  also  in  2  Tim.  ii.  18,  where 
those  are  mentioned  who  declare  that  the  resurrection  is 
past  already,  a  statement  of  Paul's  conception  of  the  resur- 
rection ;  for  it  is  clear  that  the  declaration  referred  to  was 
due  to  a  misunderstanding  of  his  own  teaching  upon  the 
subject.  One  who  laid  the  emphasis  as  he  did  upon  the 
resurrection  at  baptism  to  the  new  life  in  the  Spirit,  and 
thus  suggested  the  view  of  Hymenseus  and  Philetus,  could 
hardly  dismiss  that  view  without  a  word  of  explanation. 
Only  one  who  understood  by  the  resurrection  nothing  else 
than  the  resurrection  of  the  fleshly  body  could  express  him- 
self as  our  author  does  in  this  passage. 

But  it  is  not  simply  the  absence  of  the  great  fundamen- 
tal conceptions  of  the  Pauline  Gospel,  it  is  the  presence 
of  another  Gospel  of  a  different  aspect,  that  is  most  signifi- 
cant. Instead  of  faith  by  which  a  man  becomes  identified 
with  Christ,  so  that  Christ  lives  in  him  and  his  life  is 
divine  not  human,  we  find  piety  and  good  works  chiefly 
emphasized.  A  man's  salvation  is  conditioned  upon  his 
piety  or  godliness,  which  manifests  itself  in  his  good  works.2 
The  word  translated  piety  or  godliness,3  which  occurs  in 
none  of  Paul's  epistles,  is  found  eleven  times  in  the  pas- 
torals, nine  times  in  1  Timothy  alone,  and  plays  the  promi- 
nent part  which  the  word  "  faith  "  plays  in  Paul ;  while  the 
latter  word  is  not  employed  in  its  profound  Pauline  sense, 
but  is  used  to  signify  one  of  the  cardinal  virtues,  along 
with  love,  peace,  purity,  righteousness,  sanctification,  pa- 
tience, and  meekness.4  Occasionally  it  denotes  the  intel- 
lectual acceptance  of  certain  truths,  or  the  truth  itself; 
Christianity  being  conceived  as  an  objective  system  which 

1  For  instance,  2  Tim.  i.  9-11,  ii.  11  sq. ;  Titus  iii.  4-7. 

2  1  Tim.  v.  8.  3  etW/3eia ;  once  deoa-^eta. 
*  Of.  1  Tim.  ii.  15,  iv.  12,  vi.  11 ;  2  Tim.  ii.  22,  iii.  10 ;  Titus  ii.  2. 


404  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

one  may  accept  or  deny.1  All  this  reminds  us  of  the 
common  conception  of  faith  and  of  the  Christian  life,  which 
prevailed  widely  in  the  second  century  and  finally  became 
universal  in  the  church,  but  which  is  widely  removed  from 
the  conception  of  Paul.  If  we  admit  the  authenticity  of 
the  pastoral  epistles  in  their  present  form,  we  must  sup- 
pose that  Paul  in  the  two  or  three  years  which  succeeded 
the  composition  of  the  letters  to  the  Colossians  and  Ephe- 
vsians,  in  which  his  fundamental  conceptions  as  we  know 
them  from  Galatians,  Corinthians,  and  Romans  find  clear 
and  unequivocal  expression,  gave  up  that  form  of  the 
Gospel  which  he  had  held  and  taught  throughout  his  life, 
and  descended  from  the  lofty  religious  plane  upon  which 
he  had  always  moved,  since  Christ  had  been  revealed  in 
him,  to  the  level  of  mere  piety  and  morality.2 

But  if  Paul  was  not  the  author  of  the  pastoral  epistles, 
how  are  we  to  explain  their  ascription  to  him  ?  It  has 
been  widely  supposed  that  they  are  wholly  pseudonymous  ; 
that  they  were  composed  from  beginning  to  end  by  some 
disciple  of  Paul  or  by  some  Christian  of  a  later  generation, 
under  the  apostle's  name,  in  order  to  give  wider  currency 
and  greater  authority  to  his  own  views,  especially  in  rela- 
tion to  church  government  and  heresy.  But  it  is  clear 
that  it  would  be  much  easier  to  account  for  the  existence 
of  the  epistles  in  their  present  form,  if  we  could  sup- 
pose them  based  upon  genuine  letters  or  notes  of  Paul  to 
Timothy  and  Titus.  And  upon  examining  them  carefully, 
we  find  many  indications  that  such  documents  actually  do 
underlie  them.  In  some  cases  the  connections  between 
paragraphs  and  sentences  are  such  as  to  suggest  interpola- 
tion, and  one  or  two  striking  inconsistencies  point  in  the 
same  direction.3  Moreover,  there  are  some  passages,  es- 

1  Cf.  1  Tim.  i.  19,  iii.  9,  iv.  1,6,  v.  8. 

2  The  contrast  between  the  Christianity  of  Paul  and  that  of  the  pastoral 
epistles  appears  with  especial  clearness  in  such  passages  as  the  following: 
1  Tim.  iv.  16,  ii.  15,  iv.  8,  vi.  18,  19;  Titus  iii.  8.      Cf.  also  1  Tim.  i.  5,  19,  iv. 
12;  2  Tim.  iii.  14-17,  ii.  22,  iii.  10.     Upon  the  Christianity  of  the  pasmml 
epistles,  see  especially  Von  Soden  in  the  Hand-Kommentar,  III.  1,  8.  167  sq. 

8  Compare,  for  instance,  2  Tim.  i.  15-18,  which  is  entirely  out  of  relation 
to  the  context ;  so  also  Titus  i.  7-9.  Compare  also  the  reference  tQ  ttw  bishop 
in  1  Tim.  iii.  1  sq.  with  the  reference  to  the  elders  in  v.  17  sq. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  405 

pecially  in  2  Timothy  and  Titus,  which  have  a  genuinely 
Pauline  look  and  in  which  a  conception  of  Christianity 
finds  expression  that  is  in  sharp  contrast  to  the  epistles  as 
a  whole.1  Some  of  the  personal  notices  also  which  occur 
in  2  Timothy  and  Titus  bear  every  mark  of  genuineness. 
It  is  very  difficult  to  suppose  such  passages  as  2  Tim.  i. 
15-18,  iv.  9-21,  and  Titus  iii.  12,  13,  the  work  of  another 
than  Paul ;  for  they  have  no  relation  whatever  to  the  evi- 
dent tendency  of  the  epistles  as  a  whole,  and  no  adequate 
reason  can  be  discovered  for  their  composition  by  a  later 
writer. 

We  may  fairly  conclude,  then,  in  agreement  with  many 
modern  scholars,2  that  we  have  in  the  pastoral  epistles 
authentic  letters  of  Paul  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  worked 
over  and  enlarged  by  another  hand.  But  when  we  attempt 
to  distinguish  the  genuine  portions  from  the  later  addi- 
tions, we  find  ourselves  faced  with  a  problem  of  peculiar 
difficulty.  It  is  easier  to  draw  the  lines  in  2  Timothy 
than  in  either  of  the  others,  but  even  in  2  Timothy  it  is 
impossible  to  divide  with  any  degree  of  accuracy.  The 
greater  part  of  the  first  chapter  might  have  been  written  by 
Paul.  Verses  9-11  at  least  are  genuinely  Pauline ;  but  vs.  6b 
is  doubtful,  and  vss.  12-14  are  so  unlike  Paul,  and  are  so 
closely  related  both  in  thought  and  language  to  1  Timo- 
thy, that  we  cannot  hesitate  to  ascribe  them  to  a  later 
hand.  The  first  part  of  the  second  chapter  contains  Pauline 
conceptions  in  vss.  1  and  8-13 ;  and  there  is  nothing  in  the 
section  which  might  not  have  been  written  by  Paul,  though 
the  words  "  Faithful  is  the  saying " 3  are  very  likely  an 
interpolation,  for  they  occur  in  both  of  the  other  pastorals, 
but  nowhere  else  in  Paul's  epistles.  The  section  extend- 
ing from  ii.  14-iii.  17  is  both  in  style  and  in  content  the 
most  un-Pauline  part  of  the  epistle,  and  though  there  may 

1  See  p.  403,  above. 

2  See,  among  others,  Lemme:  Das  echte  Ermahnungschreiben  des  Apostels 
Paulus  an  Timotheus  (1882),  and  Hesse:  Die  Entstehung  der  neutestament- 
lichen  Hirtenbrirfe  (1889).    For  a  statement  of  the  various  views  of  scholars 
upon  the  subject,  see  Holtzmann:  Einleitung,  3te  Auflage.  S.  275.    Those  who 
recognize  genuine  letters  of  Paul,  underlying  the  epistles  in  their  present  form, 
differ  very  widely  in  their  reconstruction  of  them. 

»  g  Tim.  ii.  11? 


406  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

be  genuine  passages  in  it,  the  greater  part  of  it  at  any 
rate  is  from  another  -hand.  The  fourth  chapter  contains 
only  two  verses  (3  and  4)  which  it  is  necessary  to  ascribe  to 
the  interpolator,  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  at  least 
vss.  9-21  are  Paul's.  We  have  in  2  Timothy,  then,  a  gen- 
uine letter  of  Paul,  including  very  likely  a  large  part  of  the 
first  chapter,  the  first  twelve  verses  of  the  second  chapter, 
and  the  greater  part  of  the  fourth  chapter. 

In  Titus  vss.  7-9  and  the  greater  part  of  vss.  10-16  of 
the  first  chapter,  most  of  the  second  chapter  and  vss.  8-11 
and  14  of  the  third  chapter  are  probably  by  another  writer 
than  Paul.  On  the  other  hand,  in  iii.  1-7  there  is  much 
that  has  a  genuinely  Pauline  ring  and  may  well  be  his ; 
while  there  can  be  no  doubt  about  the  authenticity  of  iii. 
12, 13.  We  thus  have  in  Titus  one  of  Paul's  own  letters 
whose  limits  are  not  so  well  defined  as  in  2  Timothy,  but 
which  doubtless  included  chapter  iii.  vss.  1-7,  12  and  13, 
and  possibly  parts  of  the  first  chapter.  Both  in  2  Timo- 
thy and  Titus,  the  original  greeting  has  probably  been 
added  to. 

In  1  Timothy  it  is  even  more  difficult  to  distinguish 
authentic  passages.  Both  in  style  and  in  contents,  it  is 
less  Pauline  than  either  of  the  other  pastorals.  It  might 
fairly  be  doubted  whether  there  is  any  genuine  element 
in  it ;  whether  it  is  not  simply  a  free  composition  by  the 
interpolator  of  2  Timothy  and  Titus,  designed  to  enforce 
and  to  supplement  the  instruction  contained  in  those  epis- 
tles. If  it  be  assumed,  as  is  probable,  that  it  was  composed 
some  time  later  than  the  others,  it  is  easy  to  explain  its 
composition  on  the  ground  that  the  need  of  such  addi- 
tional instruction  had  made  itself  felt  since  the  others 
were  written.  But  if  it  be  assumed  that  1  Timothy  was 
throughout  the  free  composition  of  the  interpolator  of 
2  Timothy  and  Titus,  we  find  it  difficult  to  explain  the 
historic  reference  in  chapter  i.  vs.  3  and  the  anacoluthon 
in  the  same  passage.  It  looks  very  much  as  if  the  first 
half  of  vs.  3  constituted  a  part  of  the  opening  sentence  of 
a  genuine  letter  addressed  by  Paul  to  Timothy,  while  the 
latter  was  in  Ephesus,  and  as  if  the  conclusion  of  the  sen- 


THE   WORK   OF  PAUL  407 

tence  had  been  displaced  by  the  insertion  of  the  passage 
on  the  false  teachers.  But  I  am  inclined  to  look  for  the 
remainder  of  the  original  letter  not  in  1  Timothy,  where 

1  can  find  no  convincing  evidence  of  it,  but  in  2  Timothy, 
where  there  are  indications  that  two  letters  have  been 
combined.     It  may  be  that  when  the  two  were  put  to- 
gether, the  opening  of  one  of  them,  including  the  greeting 
and  the  introductory  sentences,  had  to  be  dropped  out, 
and  that  it  was  this  beginning  upon  which  the  author 
built  up  another  epistle  to  Timothy,  when  he  felt  the 
need  of  saying  what  he  had  not  said  in  the  earlier  one.1 

But  if  the  existence  of  genuine  Pauline  epistles  to 
Timothy  and  Titus  underlying  those  that  we  have  be 
assumed,  the  question  arises  when  and  under  what  circum- 
stances were  they  written  ?  Second  Timothy  apparently 
contains  two  letters  of  Paul,  or  fragments  of  them.  For, 
in  the  first  place,  it  is  impossible,  unless  we  assume  a 
second  Roman  imprisonment,  to  reconcile  the  various  his- 
torical notices  which  the  epistle  contains.  According  to 

2  Tim.  i,  8  and  17,  the  apostle  was  writing  while  a  prisoner 
in  Rome ; 2  but  if  during  the  imprisonment  known  to  us, 
2  Tim.  iv.  13  is  very  difficult  to  explain,  for  it  was  at 
least  three  or  four  years  since  he  had  been  in  Troas ;  and 
iv.  12  is  also  difficult,  since  it  necessitates  the  assump- 
tion that  during  the  same  imprisonment,  he  sent  Tychicus 
all  the  way  to  Asia  Minor  at  least  twice ; 3  while  iv.  20  is 
impossible,  for  Paul  had  not  been  at  Miletus   since   he 
stopped  there  on  his  way  from  Troas  to  Jerusalem,  some 
years  before,  and  at  that  time  Trophimus  had  not  been 
left  behind,  but  had  gone  on  with  him  to  Jerusalem.4     In 

1  It  is  very  likely  that  there  are  scattered  fragments  of  the  original  epistle 
in  1  Timothy,  as,  for  instance,  in  v.  23.    But  it  is  difficult  to  find  anything 
which  we  can  be  confident  was  written  by  Paul. 

2  Cf.  also  2  Tim.  iv.  6  sq.  and  21. 

3  Cf.  Col.  iv.  7  ;  Eph.  vi.  21. 

*  Acts  xxi.  29.  The  epistle  as  it  stands  can  hardly  be  put  earlier  than 
Ephesians,  Colossians,  and  Philippians,  for  the  apostle's  isolation  and  loneli- 
ness, and  the  cowardice  of  Demas  (compared  with  his  presence  at  the  time 
Colossians  was  written),  point  to  a  later  date  in  his  imprisonment,  when  death 
was  at  hand.  But  if  it  be  put  later  than  the  others,  all  the  facts  referred  to 
must  have  been  known  to  Timothy,  who  was  with  Paul  when  those  letters 
were  written. 


408  THE  APOSTOLIC    AGE 

the  second  place,  whether  the  epistle  was  written  during 
the  imprisonment  known  to  us  or  another  and  later  one, 
it  is,  as  it  stands,  inconsistent  with  itself ;  for  it  is  assumed 
down  to  iv.  5  that  Timothy  is  to  remain  in  Ephesus  and 
continue  his  work  there,  while  in  iv.  9  he  is  directed  to 
leave  Ephesus  and  join  Paul  at  once.  In  the  third  place, 
it  is  easier  to  explain  the  evident  displacement  of  i.  15-18, 
if  we  suppose  another  epistle  combined  with  the  first  in 
iv.  9  sq.  Knowing  that  2  Timothy,  as  we  have  it,  is  at 
any  rate  largely  interpolated,  there  is  no  more  difficulty 
in  assuming  that  the  author  used  two  letters  of  Paul, 
which  happened  to  come  into  his  hands,  than  in  assuming 
that  he  used  only  one. 

One  of  the  two  epistles  of  Paul,  thus  employed  by  the 
redactor,  included  probably  the  greater  part  of  2  Tim.  i. 
1-12,  ii.  1-13,  iv.  1,  2,  5-8, 16-19,  21  \  10,  and  i.  15-18.  It 
was  thus  an  epistle  of  some  length,  intended  to  encourage 
Timothy  and  to  exhort  him  to  carry  on  his  work  with 
vigor  and  fidelity,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  Paul  himself 
was  soon  to  be  put  to  death.  It  was  written  from  Rome 
while  Paul  was  a  prisoner  there,1  and  apparently  toward 
the  close  of  his  imprisonment;  for,  of  those  who  were 
with  him  when  he  wrote  Colossians  and  Philemon,  Luke 
was  the  only  one  left,2  and  the  apostle  was  expecting  to  die 
shortly.3  All  hope  of  release,  such  as  he  had  when  he 
wrote  the  other  epistles,  had  disappeared.4  The  letter 
constituted,  in  a  sense,  his  dying  testament  addressed  to 
his  dearest  disciple,  who  was  carrying  on  and  wras  to  con- 
tinue to  carry  on  the  apostle's  work  in  Ephesus.  It  would 
seem  that  we  still  have  the  complete  epistle,  and  that  it 
formed  the  basis  upon  which  was  built  our  2  Timothy,  by 
the  addition  of  the  section  ii.  14-iii.  17,  and  of  other 
brief  passages,  phrases,  and  sentences  in  other  parts  of  the 
epistle. 

1  Cf.  2  Tim.  i.  17,  and  the  salutations  in  iv.  21 ;  also  i.  8  and  iv.  6  sq. 

2  2  Tim.  iv.  11.  »  2  Tim.  iv.  6  sq. 

4  That  it  was  not  written  before  the  other  epistles  is  clear,  not  only  from 
the  reasons  given  in  a  previous  note,  but  also  from  the  fact  that  Timothy, 
who  was  with  him  when  he  wrote  those  epistles,  was  now  absent  and  appar- 
ently expecting  to  remain  in  Ephesus. 


THE  WORK  OF  PAUL  409 

But  with  it  was  combined,  as  has  been  seen,  another 
letter  from  Paul  to  Timothy,  apparently  much  briefer  than 
the  former,  probably  nothing  more  in  fact  than  a  note 
urging  Timothy  to  join  him  as  soon  as  possible.  This  note* 
the  address  of  which  is  possibly  preserved  in  a  modified 
form  in  the  early  verses  of  1  Timothy,  very  likely  included 
2  Tim.  iv.  9,  11-18,  20,  21 a,  and  ran  somewhat  as  follows : 
"  Do  thy  diligence  to  come  shortly  unto  me.  Take  Mark,  and 
bring  him  with  thee:  for  he  is  useful  to  me  for  minister- 
ing. I  have  sent  Tychicus  to  Ephesus.  The  cloke  that  I 
left  at  Troas  with  Carpus,  bring  when  thou  comest,  and 
the  books,  especially  the  parchments.  Alexander  the 
coppersmith  did  me  much  evil:  the  Lord  will  render  to 
him  according  to  his  works:  of  him  be  thou  ware  also; 
for  he  greatly  withstood  our  words.  Erastus  abode  -at 
Corinth:  but  Trophimus  I  left  at  Miletus  sick.  Do  thy 
diligence  to  come  before  winter."  The  situation  is  very 
uncertain,  but  it  seems  most  probable  that  the  note  was 
written  from  Macedonia,  after  Paul  had  left  Ephesus  for  the 
last  time.  This  final  departure  from  Ephesus  is  referred 
to  in  Acts  xx.  1  and  in  2  Cor.  ii.  12,  vii.  5  sq.,  and  though 
the  route  taken  by  Paul  to  Troas  is  not  stated,  he  may 
have  had  reasons  for  making  the  trip  by  boat  from  Miletus,, 
and  therefore  have  left  Trophimus  there  sick,  as  he  says 
in  2  Tim.  iv.  20.  Timothy  was  apparently  not  in  Ephesus; 
at  the  time  of  Paul's  departure  from  the  city,  otherwise 
the  information  contained  in  vs.  14  sq.  would  have  been 
unnecessary.  But  he  was  evidently  expecting  to  arrive 
there  shortly,1  very  likely  from  the  East,  whither  he  may 
have  gone  on  a  visit,  or  on  a  mission  for  Paul.  It  had 
been  Paul's  intention,  it  would  seem,  to  have  him  remain 
in  Ephesus  when  he  arrived  there,  and  he  had  apparently 
written  him  to  that  effect  when  he  left  Ephesus  him- 
self.2 Meanwhile,  however,  he  found  that  he  needed  him, 
and  he  therefore  wrote  him  from  Macedonia  to  come  at 
once,  and  he  took  occasion  to  utter  a  warning  against 
Alexander  the  coppersmith,  who  had  done  him  much  evil, 
and  who  had,  perhaps,  brought  him  into  the  danger  to, 
l  Cf.  1  Tim.  i.  3,  2  Tim.  iv.  13  and  15.  2  i  Tim.  i.  3. 


410  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

which  he  refers  in  Second  Corinthians,  written  shortly 
afterward.1  He  also  asks  Timothy  to  bring  certain  things 
from  Troas,  tells  him  of  the  illness  of  Trophimus,  and  the 
whereabouts  of  Erastus,  who  had  apparently  been  expected 
to  join  Timothy  in  Ephesus,  or  Paul  himself  in  Macedonia. 
He  also  requests  him  to  bring  Mark,  and  informs  him  that 
he  has  sent  Tychicus  to  Ephesus,  apparently  to  take  either 
Mark  or  Timothy's  place.  If  this  sketch  of  the  course  of 
events  at  this  time  be  correct,  Timothy  must  have  obeyed 
Paul's  summons  speedily;  for  he  was  already  with  him  in 
Macedonia  when  Second  Corinthians  was  written,2  which 
cannot  have  been  long  afterward.  It  is  true,  of  course,  that 
this  reconstruction  is  merely  hypothetical.  But  the  Pauline 
authorship,  whether  of  the  pastoral  epistles  in  their  present 
form  or  of  briefer  letters  underlying  them,  can  be  maintained 
only  on  the  basis  of  a  hypothetical  reconstruction,  either  of 
an  entire  period  subsequent  to  the  Roman  imprisonment  or 
of  the  events  within  some  period  known  to  us.  And  it  is 
claimed  only  that  the  one  here  attempted  has  more  points 
of  contact  with  known  facts  than  others  that  have  been 
suggested,  and  that  it  accounts  better  for  all  the  phenomena 
of  the  case. 

Turning  to  the  Epistle  to  Titus,  we  find  that  Titus  was 
in  Crete  at  the  time  Paul  wrote  to  him,  according  to  i.  5. 
We  can  account  for  this  reference  only  on  the  ground 
of  its  genuineness,  and  there  is  no  reason  for  question- 
ing it.  But  Titus'  stay  in  Crete,  and  Paul's  letter  to 
him,  can  hardly  be  put  at  any  other  time  than  during  the 
apostle's  final  visit  to  Achaia,  recorded  in  Acts  xx.  1  sq. 
The  mention  of  Apollos  excludes  a  date  earlier  than  Paul's 
long  residence  in  Ephesus ;  and  his  proposal  to  winter  in 
Nicopolis,  and  his  direction  to  Titus  to  join  him  there, 
make  against  the  assumption  that  the  epistle  was  written 
in  the  earlier  part  of  that  period.  But  during  the  greater 
part  of  the  last  year  spent  in  Ephesus,  and  until  the  com- 
position of  2  Corinthians,  Titus  was  fully  occupied  with 
the  difficulties  in  the  church  of  Corinth,  and  could  not 
have  gone  to  Crete  to  do  work  there.  It  would  seem, 

12  Cor.  i.8sq.  22Cor.i.l. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  411 

therefore,  that  he  must  have  made  his  way  thither  after 
he  had  carried  Paul's  final  epistle  to  the  Corinthian  church, 
and  while  Paul  himself  was  still  on  his  way  to  Corinth.1 
The  original  letter  to  Titus,  then,  which  underlies  the 
epistle  in  its  present  form,  must  have  been  written  before 
Paul's  three  months'  stay  in  Corinth ;  for,  at  the  time  he 
wrote,  he  was  planning  to  spend  the  winter  in  Nicopolis,  a 
plan  which  he  did  not  carry  out,  though  he  may  have  spent 
a  little  while  there.2  Whether  Paul  himself  had  been  in 
Crete  before  he  wrote  to  Titus,  as  implied  in  Titus  i.  5, 
we  cannot  be  absolutely  sure.  It  is  possible  that  he  went 
thither  soon  after  writing  2  Corinthians,  during  the  inter- 
val of  six  or  eight  months  which  elapsed  before  his  final 
arrival  in  Corinth.3  But  the  fact  must  be  recognized  that 
it  would  have  been  easy  for  a  later  writer,  in  composing 
alleged  instructions  of  Paul  to  Titus,  to  add  the  reference 
to  Paul's  presence  in  Crete,  which  might  naturally  suggest 
itself  as  furnishing  a  justification  for  such  instructions 
and  a  proper  setting  for  the  epistle. 

Paul's  letter  to  Titus,  which  underlies  our  present  epis- 
tle, was  apparently  written  primarily  for  the  purpose  of 
asking  Titus  to  join  him  for  the  winter.  But  that  he 
should  take  occasion  to  add  words  of  instruction,  exhorta- 
tion, and  encouragement,  such  as  we  find  in  the  third  chap- 
ter, is  not  at  all  surprising.  The  letter  seems  to  have  been 
carried  by  Zenas  and  Apollos,  who  were  intending  to  pass 
through  Crete,  and  whom  Paul  commends  to  Titus'  hos- 
pitality.4 Whether  Titus  actually  rejoined  Paul  before 
the  latter's  departure  for  Jerusalem,  we  do  not  know. 
He  was  apparently  not  among  the  number  of  those  that 

1  Titus  may  have  been  already  acquainted  in  Crete,  and  may  have  gone 
there  simply  to  resume  work  begun  some  time  before. 

2  Paul  actually  spent,  at  any  rate,  the  latter  part  of  the  winter  in  Corinth, 
for  he  was  three  months  there  according  to  Acts  xx.  3,  and  he  left  there  some 
time  before  Passover  (xx.  6) . 

8  It  is  possible  that  the  three  months  of  Acts  xx.  3  are  to  be  reckoned,  not 
from  the  time  of  Paul's  arrival  in  Corinth  from  Macedonia,  but  from  the  time 
of  his  return  thither  after  a  trip  to  Crete.  The  indefiniteness  of  xx.  2  suggests 
that  the  author  of  Acts  knew  very  little  about  the  details  of  Paul's  life  at  this 
time. 

4  Titus  iii.  13.  Zenas  is  mentioned  only  here  ;  Apollos  in  Acts  and  1  Corin- 
thians. 


412  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

accompanied  him  thither;1  but  at  a  later  time  we  find 
him  making  his  way  from  Rome  to  Dalmatia,  some  dis- 
tance to  the  north  of  Nicopolis,  as  if  he  were  already  ac- 
quainted there,  and  his  acquaintance  throughout  the  whole 
region  lying  along  the  eastern  coast  of  the  Adriatic  may 
have  begun  at  this  time.  He  may  now  have  taken  up  and 
carried  on  the  work  which  Paul  had  possibly  already  done 
in  Illyricum.2 

The  purpose  of  the  redactor  of  the  pastoral  epistles  it  is 
not  at  all  difficult  to  discover.  He  desired  to  provide  for 
the  healthy  development  of  the  church  by  the  institution 
of  permanent  safeguards  and  by  the  formulation  of  per- 
manent rules.  Paul's  brief  letters  to  Timothy  and  Titus 
coming  into  his  hands,  he  added  to  them  in  good  faith 
what  he  believed  Paul  would  himself  say  in  the  light  of 
the  peculiar  needs  of  the  day.  He  regarded  himself  as  a 
loyal  follower  of  Paul,  who  understood  his  teaching  thor- 
oughly, and  was  thus  justified  in  acting  as  his  mouthpiece. 
As  the  evils  which  seemed  to  him  especially  to  require 
combating  lay  in  the  spheres  of  life,  and  doctrine,  he  em- 
phasized particularly  the  importance  of  living  righteously 
and  piously,  and  of  renouncing  and  eschewing  all  novel- 
ties and  vagaries  of  faith.  In  2  Timothy  he  denounces  at 
considerable  length  and  with  great  vehemence  the  doctrine 
of  certain  false  teachers  and  the  practices  of  certain  liber- 
tines. In  the  Epistle  to  Titus  he  is  also  concerned  to  do 
away  with  false  doctrine  and  corrupt  practice,  but  he  takes 
a  somewhat  different  course,  emphasizing  the  need  of  proper 
officers  who  shall  guard  the  churches  against  such  evils. 
There  is  less  denunciation  of  heresy  in  Titus  than  in  2  Tim- 
othy, but  much  more  emphasis  is  laid  upon  church  organi- 
zation and  upon  the  practical  duties  of  the  Christian  life. 

1  Cf .  Acts  xx.  4  sq. 

2  Cf.  Rom.  xv.  19;  and  see  above,  p.  254.    The  terra  Illyricum  was  proba- 
bly used  by  Paul  in  the  passage  referred  to  in  its  general  sense  to  designate 
the  country  lying  along  the  eastern  coast  of  the  Adriatic  from  Epirns  north- 
ward to  the  Danube,  and  including  with  other  territory  the  provinces  of 
Pannonia  and  Dalmatia,  and  the  western  part  of   Moesia  and  Macedonia. 
In  its  narrower  sense  Illyricum  was  the  name  of  the  Roman  province  which, 
from  the  time  of  Augustus  on,  was  more  commonly  called  D.ilmatia.    See 
Marquaid  :  K-iinische  Staatsverwaltung ,  I.  S.  295. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  413 

Having  produced  these  two  epistles,  the  redactor  was  led 
some  time  afterward  to  feel  that  there  was  a  need  of  re- 
newed exhortations  and  of  fuller  and  more  explicit  instruc- 
tion, not  only  in  the  matters  already  dealt  with,  but  also 
in  connection  with  worship  and  organization,  in  which  cer- 
tain evil  tendencies  were  making  their  appearance.  He 
therefore  composed  a  third  epistle,  using  the  greeting  and 
the  opening  sentence  which  he  had  been  obliged  to  omit, 
when  he  combined  Paul's  briefer  letter  with  the  longer  one 
to  form  our  2  Timothy.1  The  arrangement  of  the  material 
is  much  less  orderly  in  1  Timothy  than  in  either  2  Timothy 
or  Titus.  Various  subjects  are  thrown  together  without 
any  apparent  relation  to  each  other.  But  in  spite  of  the 
lack  of  order,  the  general  purpose  which  controls  all  three 
of  the  epistles,  to  provide  for  the  healthy  development  of 
the  church  by  the  institution  of  safeguards  and  by  the  for- 
mulation of  rules,  is  kept  constantly  in  mind ;  and  all  that 
is  said  has  a  more  or  less  direct  reference  to  it,  though  it 
may  have  no  immediate  relation  to  the  context.  That  pur- 
pose, in  fact,  is  carried  out  more  fully  in  1  Timothy  than  in 
either  of  the  other  epistles.  More  space  is  given  to  false 
teachers,  and  greater  emphasis  is  laid  upon  church  organi- 
zation. The  epistle  constitutes  an  excellent  supplement  to 
the  others,  stating  with  greater  elaborateness  and  complete- 
ness principles  which  find  expression  in  them. 

Who  the  redactor  of  the  pastoral  epistles  was,  and  where 
he  lived,  we  have  no  means  of  determining.  He  can  hardly 
have  been  a  personal  disciple  of  Paul,  certainly  not  an 
intimate  disciple ;  but  he  evidently  regarded  Paul  as  his 
master,  and  believed  himself  to  be  a  genuine  Paulinist. 
The  time  when  he  did  his  work  can  be  fixed  only  approxi- 
mately. The  three  epistles  were  almost  certainly  known 
to  Ignatius  and  Polycarp,  and  therefore  cannot  well  be 
put  later  than  the  first  or  second  decade  of  the  second 
century.  On  the  other  hand,  the  emphasis  upon  heresy 
in  all  three  epistles,  the  lack  of  the  primitive  idea  of  the 

1  That  the  latter,  though  written  first,  is  traditionally  known  as  2  Timothy, 
is  due,  of  course,  to  the  fact  that  it  represents  a  later  period  in  Paul's  life  than 
1  Timothy. 


414  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

endowment  of  all  believers  with  spiritual  gifts,  fitting 
them  for  special  forms  of  service,  and  the  substitution  for 
such  inspired  believers  of  appointed  officers,  charged  with 
the  performance  of  teaching  as  well  as  of  financial  and  dis- 
ciplinary functions,  point  to  a  time  as  late  as  the  close  of 
the  first  century,  or  the  early  years  of  the  second. 

But  though  the  pastoral  epistles  in  their  present  form 
are  the  work  of  a  later  hand  than  Paul's,  we  may  yet 
gather  from  the  longer  of  the  two  letters  which  underlie 
2  Timothy  some  information  touching  Paul's  life  during 
the  period  subsequent  to  the  composition  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Philippians.  It  was  arranged  that  after  Epaphroditus 
had  departed  with  that  epistle,  Timothy  should  remain 
in  Rome  for  a  time  until  Paul  had  some  assurance  as  to 
the  outcome  of  the  preliminary  trial  which  seems  to  have 
been  expected  in  the  near  future.1  Apparently,  however, 
Timothy  left  for  the  East  before  the  hearing  took  place, 
for  Paul  tells  him  something  about  it  in  2  Tim.  iv.  16. 
Very  likely  it  was  postponed  longer  than  had  been  looked 
for,  and  it  was  therefore  thought  best  that  Timothy  should 
not  wait  for  it.  He  must  have  visited  Philippi  and  de- 
spatched his  business  there  before  Paul  wrote  to  him,  for 
he  was  already  in  Ephesus  and  was  apparently  intending 
to  remain  there.2  An  interval  of  at  least  some  months 
therefore  separated  the  Epistle  to  Timothy  from  the  Epis- 
tle to  the  Philippians.  The  letter  to  his  beloved  disciple, 
the  last  product  of  Paul's  pen  known  to  us,  was  evidently 
written  shortly  before  his  execution.  His  death  was  im- 
mediately impending  and  he  no  longer  entertained  any 
such  hopes  as  he  had  when  he  wrote  to  the  Philippians. 
The  preliminary  trial  had  not  had  the  favorable  issue 
which  he  had  thought  possible  at  that  time,  and  his  fore- 
bodings had  proved  to  be  fully  justified.  The  companions 
that  were  with  him  had  failed  to  stand  by  him  in  his 
hour  of  need,3  and  now  upon  the  eve  of  his  execution  only 
Luke  remained  at  his  side.  He  still  had  friends,  to  be  sure, 
for  he  sends  greetings  to  Timothy  from  Eubulus,  Pudens, 
Linus,  Claudia,  and  "all  the  brethren";4  but  apparently 

1  Phil.  ii.  23  sq.    2  2  Tim.  iv.  19  and  iv.  1  sq.      8  2  Tim.  iv.  16.     4  2  Tim.  iv.  21 


THE   WORK   OF  PAUL  415 

Luke  alone  now  shared  his  quarters  with  him,  as  his  other 
old-time  companions  had  done  during  the  earlier  part  of 
his  imprisonment,1  and  Luke  alone  therefore  was  left  to 
perform  their  ministrations  and  to  fill  their  place.2 

From  Acts  xxviii.  30,  it  may  fairly  be  inferred  that 
Paul's  execution  took  place  about  two  years  after  his  ar- 
rival in  Rome.  It  is  plain  enough,  at  any  rate,  that  some 
decisive  and  permanent  change  in  his  situation  occurred  at 
that  time.  That  change  may  have  been  simply  his  removal 
from  his  lodging  and  his  committal  to  prison  after  his  con- 
demnation, to  await  the  execution  of  the  sentence  passed 
upon  him ;  but  the  end  could  not  be  long  delayed  in  any 
case,  and  the  two  years  may  therefore  be  taken  as  repre- 
senting at  least  approximately  the  time  that  elapsed  between 
his  arrival  in  Rome  and  his  death. 

It  is  true  that  it  is  believed  by  many  that  Paul's  Roman 
imprisonment  was  brought  to  an  end  not  by  his  condem- 
nation and  execution,  but  by  his  acquittal  and  release.3 
In  support  of  this  opinion  are  urged,  on  the  one  hand,  a 
journey  to  Spain  which  Paul  is  reported  to  have  made, 
and  which  he  cannot  have  made  before  his  Roman  imprison- 
ment, and  on  the  other  hand,  a  final  trip  to  the  East,  sub- 
sequent to  the  period  covered  by  the  Book  of  Acts,  which 
must  be  assumed  if  the  pastoral  epistles  are  genuine  in 
their  present  form.  So  far  as  the  alleged  journey  to  Spain 
is  concerned,  it  may  be  dismissed  on  the  ground  of  insuf- 
ficient evidence.  Clement  of  Rome,  who  wrote  before  the 
end  of  the  first  century,  is  cited  by  many  as  a  witness  to 


1  Paul's  reference  to  Aristarchus  in  Col.  iv.  10  and  Epaphras  in  Philemon 
23,  as  his  "  fellow-prisoners,"  seems  to  imply  that  they  were  living  with  him 
in  his  own  dwelling.     It  may  be  that  his  friends  took  turns  in  sharing  his 
confinement  in  order  that  they  might  minister  to  him  in  such  personal  ways 
as  they  could  not  otherwise. 

2  The  reference  in  2  Tim.  i.  17  to  Onesiphorus'  diligent  search  for  Paul 
seems  to  imply  that  he  was  no  longer  living  where  he  had  been,  and  enjoying 
the  same  degree  of  freedom.    Condemnation  had  perhaps  already  been  passed 
upon  him,  and  he  was  confined  in  prison  pending  his  execution. 

8  In  support  of  Paul's  alleged  release  and  second  Roman  imprisonment,  see 
especially  the  most  recent  work  upon  the  subject  by  Spitta:  Die  zweimalige 
romische  Gefangenschaft  des  Paulus  (Zur  Geschichte  und  Litteratur  des 
Urchristenthums,  Bd.  I.  S.  2-108).  In  it  may  be  found  all  that  can  be  said 
in  favor  of  the  theory. 


416  THE   APOSTOLIC    AGE 

it;  but  his  words  are  as  easily  referable  to  Rome  as  to 
Spain,  and  to  use  them  in  support  of  Paul's  release  from 
his  Roman  imprisonment,  and  a  missionary  tour  in  the 
West,  is  to  attribute  to  Clement  an  elliptical  mode  of 
expression  and  a  compression  of  thought  and  style  utterly 
foreign  to  the  remainder  of  his  epistle.1  The  earliest  dis- 
tinct references  to  a  Spanish  journey  are  found  in  the 
Muratorian  Fragment,  a  document  dating  from  the  close 
of  the  second  century,2  and  in  certain  apocryphal  Acts  of 
Peter  and  Paul  which  probably  contain  material  dating 
from  the  latter  half  of  the  same  century.3  But  such  late 
testimonies,  utterly  unsupported  as  they  are  by  the  Fathers 
of  the  second  and  third  centuries,  and  running  counter  as 
they  do  to  the  tacit  assumption  of  most  of  the  writers  of 
the  period,  that  Paul  met  his  death  in  Rome  at  the  close 
of  his  two  years'  imprisonment  there,  can  have  little  weight 
over  against  the  significant  fact  that  there  is  absolutely 
no  trace  of  Paul's  visit  to  Spain  in  the  tradition  of  any 
Spanish  church.  That  it  should  have  been  supposed  by 

1  Clement's  words  are  as  follows :  "  On  account  of  jealousy  and  strife  Paul 
pointed  out  the  prize  of  patient  endurance.    After  that  he  had  been  seven 
times  in  bonds,  had  been  exiled,  had  been  stoned,  had  become  a  herald  in  the 
East  and  in  the  West,  he  received  the  noble  renown  of  his  faith ;  having 
taught  righteousness  to  the  whole  world,  and  having  come  to  the  end  of  the 
West,  and  having  borne  testimony  before  the  rulers,  he  departed  thus  from 
the  world,  and  went  to  the  holy  place,  having  become  a  supreme  example  of 
patient  endurance  "  (Ad  Cor.  5).    A  journey  to  Spain  is  supposed  by  many  to 
be  involved  in  the  words:  "having  come  to  the  end  of  the  West"  (tirl  rb 
rtpua  TTJJ  Si/crews  t\6uv).    It  is  true  that  rb  rtpua  TT;S  S&rews  taken  alone 
might  naturally  be  interpreted  as  referring  to  the  Columns  of  Hercules  or 
Spain  (though  it  is  a  mistake  to  say  that  the  phrase  was  a  technical  one  for 
that  or  any  other  place),  but  the  connection  in  which  the  words  occur  make 
such  a  reference  extremely  unlikely.    The  next  two  clauses  certainly  refer  to 
Paul's  trial  and  death  in  Rome,  and  it  is  difficult  to  suppose  that  in  the  clause 
in  question  Clement  can  be  recording  a  journey  beyond  Rome  from  which 
Paul»had  to  return  in  order  to  bear  his  testimony  before  the  rulers.    It  is 
worthy  of   notice  that  the  early  Fathers  who  read  Clement's  epistle  never 
thought  of  interpreting  the  words  as  referring  to  Spain  (cf .  Harnack :  Putrum 
Apostolicorum  Opera,  in  Joe.).    The  truth  is  that  if  Rome  was  the  western- 
most point  that  Paul  reached,  the  phrase  Ttpua  T^S  Suo-ews  might  be  used  of 
Rome  with  perfect  propriety  in  speaking  of  his  career. 

2  The  Muratorian  Fragment  reads :  "  Acta  autem  omnium  apostolorum  sub 
uno  libro  scripta  suut.    Lucas  optime  Theophile  comprendit,  quia  sub  prae- 
sentia  ejus  singula  gerebantur,  sicuti  et  semote  passionem  Petri  evidenter 
declarat,  sed  et  profectionem  Pauli  ab  urbe  ad  Spaniam  profiscentis." 

»  See  Spitta,  I.e.  S.  64  sq. 


THE  WORK   OF   PAUL  417 

the  authors  of  the  Muratorian  Fragment  and  of  the  apocry- 
phal Acts  referred  to,  that  Paul  actually  visited  Spain,  is 
easy  to  understand  in  the  light  of  his  intention  to  go  thither 
expressed  in  Rom.  xv.  24,  28. 1 

On  the  other  hand,  so  far  as  another  visit  to  the  East  is 
concerned,  the  only  evidence  we  have  for  such  a  visit  is 
found  in  the  pastoral  epistles,  whose  authenticity  in  their 
present  form  has  already  been  shown  to  be  untenable,  and 
the  genuine  fragments  of  which  have  been  fully  explained 
on  the  assumption  of  a  single  Roman  imprisonment.  Under 
such  circumstances  not  much  of  an  argument  can  be  drawn 
from  them  in  favor  of  another  trip  to  Ephesus  and  other 
eastern  points.  Moreover,  it  is  exceedingly  difficult  to 
understand  how  Luke  can  have  repeated  on  his  own  ac- 
count and  without  any  comment,  in  Acts  xx.  38,  Paul's 
categorical  declaration  to  the  Ephesian  elders,  that  they 
should  see  his  face  no  more,2  if  he  knew  that  five  years 
later  Paul  visited  Ephesus  again,  as  he  can  hardly  have 
failed  to  know  if  he  actually  did  so.  Thus  the  arguments 
that  are  urged  in  support  of  Paul's  release  from  his  Roman 
imprisonment  must  be  pronounced  inconclusive,  whether 
they  are  drawn  from  an  alleged  visit  to  Spain  or  from  an 
assumed  journey  to  the  Orient. 

But  there  are  positive  reasons  for  asserting  that  Paul 
cannot  have  been  released,  and  we  may  therefore  go 
beyond  the  mere  conclusion  that  such  release  has  not 
been  proven.  It  is,  to  say  the  least,  surprising  that  in 
his  second  imprisonment,  as  in  his  first,  Demas  and  Luke 
and  Tychicus  should  be  his  companions,  all  the  more  sur- 
prising in  view  of  Demas'  ultimate  cowardice  and  faithless- 
ness referred  to  in  2  Tim.  iv.  10.  But  the  decisive  fact  is 
the  silence  not  of  the  Book  of  Acts  alone  but  of  all  our 
sources.  That  silence  constitutes  the  strongest  kind  of  an 

1  It  is  very  significant  that  the  author  of  the  Muratorian  Fragment  says 
nothing  about  Luke's  failure  to  record  Paul's  release  from  imprisonment,  a 
more  surprising  omission  than  the  journey  to  Spain,  if  he  really  was  released. 
But  this  seems  to  show  clearly  enough  that  the  writer  had  no  knowledge  of 
the  Spanish  journey,  but  that  he  simply  drew  a  conclusion  from  the  passage 
in  Romans ;  assuming,  very  likely,  that  Paul  went  to  Spain  before  the  Roman 
captivity  recorded  in  Acts. 

2  Acts  xx.  25. 

2E 


418  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

argument  against  Paul's  release,  and  consequently  against 
a  journey  either  eastward  or  westward  after  his  two  years' 
imprisonment  in  Rome.  Paul  had  appealed  to  Csesar.  If 
Luke  could  have  recorded  that  he  was  acquitted  and  re- 
leased by  the  emperor,  it  seems  inconceivable  that  he  would 
have  failed  to  do  so.  Such  an  acquittal  would  have  con- 
stituted a  magnificent  climax  in  the  long  series  of  in- 
stances which  he  gives  of  the  favorable  treatment  accorded 
Christianity  by  the  Roman  authorities.1  If  a  Roman  em- 

1  See  above,  p.  346  sq. 

Ramsay  apparently  feels  the  force  of  this  consideration  and  recognizes  the 
difficulty  of  believing  that  Luke,  after  dwelling  at  such  length  upon  the  vari- 
ous stages  of  Paul's  trial,  can  have  intended  to  let  his  acquittal  and  release  go 
unmentioned.  But  instead  of  drawing  the  conclusion  that  Paul  was  not  re- 
leased, he  maintains  that  Luke  contemplated  the  composition  of  a  third  work, 
"  in  which  should  be  related  the  final  stages  of  the  trial,  the  acquittal  of  Paul, 
the  active  use  which  he  made  of  his  permission  to  preach,  the  organization  of 
the  church  in  the  new  provinces,  and  the  second  trial  occurring  at  the  worst 
and  most  detested  period  of  Nero's  rule"  (St.  Paul,  p.  309).  But  of  such  a 
third  work  there  is  absolutely  no  sign ;  for  the  use,  by  such  a  writer  as  Luke, 
of  trp&Tov  instead  of  wpbrepov  in  referring  to  the  Gospel  (Acts  i.  1)  can  hardly 
be  intended  by  Ramsay  to  be  taken  as  a  serious  argument.  The  book,  as 
we  have  it,  comes  to  a  well-defined  conclusion  and  there  is  no  hint  that  any 
farther  account  is  intended.  Indeed  the  plan  of  the  book  is  so  comprehensive 
that  it  is  difficult  to  suppose  that  the  author  had  in  mind  the  composition  of  a 
third  work,  for  which  there  was  left  only  a  comparatively  brief  and  unim- 
portant period.  Had  he  had  any  such  work  in  mind,  he  would  certainly  have 
divided  his  material  differently  and  would  have  covered  much  less  ground 
than  he  does  in  his  second  book.  Moreover,  it  is  inconceivable,  if  he  intended 
to  relate  the  close  of  Paul's  trial  and  his  release  from  imprisonment,  that  he 
should  have  postponed  it  to  a  third  work.  If  he  had  any  historic  sense,  —  and 
Ramsay  is  right  in  emphasizing  the  fact  that  he  had  a  great  deal,  —  he  could 
not  do  otherwise  than  put  the  whole  of  the  trial  into  one  work,  either  includ- 
ing it  all  in  the  Book  of  Acts,  or  saving  the  entire  subject,  from  the  arrest  at 
Jerusalem  on,  for  the  third  book.  To  break  off  in  the  midst  of  the  trial  \\as 
most  irrational,  especially  since  if  Paul  was  set  free,  his  release  must  consti- 
tute the  climax  of  the  entire  account  of  his  imprisonment.  Not  only,  then,  is 
there  nothing  to  support  the  theory  that  Luke  contemplated  a  third  work  in 
which  the  release  of  Paul  was  to  be  recorded  ;  the  theory  runs  exactly  counter 
to  all  the  probabilities  of  the  case. 

Spitta  also  maintains  that  Luke  planned  to  write  a  third  work  in  continu- 
ation of  the  Book  of  Acts  (Die  Apostelgeschichte,  S.  318  sq.).  He  is  led  to  his 
opinion  by  the  observation  that  the  two  sources  which  he  claims  were  used  by 
the  author  of  the  Acts  do  not  reach  a  definite  and  final  conclusion  with  the 
close  of  that  work.  But  even  if  the  existence  of  his  two  sources  were  admitted, 
and  even  if  it  were  recognized  that  they  are  not  followed  to  their  end  by  the 
author  of  the  Acts,  the  proof  that  he  intended  to  continue  the  use  of  them  in  a 
third  work  would  still  be  lacking;  for  his  plan  might  well  lead  him  to  close 
his  history  where  he  did,  without  regard  to  his  sources,  as  it  certainly  led  him 
to  omit  much  that  must  have  been  recorded  in  his  sources  if  they  were  the 
kind  of  documents  that  Spitta  supposes.  Spitta's  argument  consequently  can- 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  419 

peror  had  officially  declared  the  great  apostle  of  the  Gen- 
tiles innocent,  and  had  sent  him  away  a  free  man  after 
his  five  years  of  imprisonment,  it  is  difficult  to  suppose 
that  the  fact  can  have  been  entirely  unknown  to  Luke, 
and  it  is  impossible  to  suppose  that  it  can  have  been  un- 
known to  the  whole  early  church.  And  yet  it  is  men- 
tioned by  no  early  writer.  When  apologetics  was  made 
so  much  of  in  the  first  and  early  second  centuries,  and 
every  means  was  employed  to  prove  that  Christianity  was 
innocent  and  harmless,  it  is  inconceivable,  if  such  a  strik- 
ing vindication  of  it  was  known  to  have  occurred,  that  it 
could  be  passed  by  in  absolute  silence,  and  be  appealed  to 
by  not  a  single  Christian.1  In  the  light  of  this  considera- 
tion alone,  even  were  there  no  other,  it  would  be  necessary 
to  pronounce  Paul's  release  a  fiction,  and  to  conclude  that 
his  two  years'  imprisonment  in  Rome  closed  with  his  con- 
viction and  execution. 

As  Paul  left  Csesarea  in  the  fall  of  55,  and  reached 
Rome  the  following  spring,  he  must  have  died  in  58,  some 
six  years  before  the  great  persecution  of  Nero.  It  will 
not  do,  therefore,  to  connect  his  death  in  any  way  with 
that  persecution.  He  was  not  convicted  of  preaching 

not  make  the  assumed  continuation  of  the  Book  of  Acts  probable.  And  indeed, 
even  if  the  possibility  were  granted  that  Luke  intended  to  write  a  third  work, 
the  remarkable  fact  would  remain  unexplained,  that  Paul's  acquittal  and 
release  is  mentioned  by  no  early  writer,  and  that  no  one  even  hints  that 
Christianity  had  received  official  vindication,  in  the  person  of  its  greatest 
apostle,  at  the  bar  of  a  Roman  emperor.  To  assume,  in  the  presence  of  such 
eloquent  silence,  that  Paul  was  actually  acquitted,  and  that  Luke  intended  to 
record  the  important  fact  in  a  work  which  he  after  all  failed  to  write,  is  to 
say  the  least  venturesome. 

1  The  fact  that  Paul  was  arrested  not  as  a  Christian,  but  as  a  disturber  of 
the  peace,  does  not  affect  the  matter;  for  in  whatever  light  he  may  have 
appeared  to  the  authorities,  he  regarded  himself  and  was  regarded  by  all  his 
brethren  as  a  sufferer  for  his  Christian  faith,  and  his  acquittal  consequently 
must  seem  a  verdict  in  Christianity's  favor. 

That  Nero  subsequently  persecuted  the  Christians  would  be  a  reason  not 
for  keeping  silence  in  regard  to  his  earlier  acquittal  of  Paul,  but  rather  for 
appealing  to  that  acquittal  and  contrasting  it  with  the  Emperor's  later  action. 
Every  one  recognized  that  in  the  butchery  of  the  Christians  he  had  been  actu- 
ated by  anything  but  motives  of  justice  and  a  care  for  the  welfare  of  the 
state,  and  if  it  could  be  shown  that  at  an  earlier  time,  when  his  worst  pas- 
sions had  not  yet  broken  loose,  he  had  acquitted  the  leader  of  the  Christians 
after  a  full  and  fair  trial,  it  would  be  a  magnificent  argument  in  favor  of  the 
harmlessness  of  Christianity. 


420  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

new  gods,  or  of  promulgating  a  novel  and  illegal  religion; 
Had  he  been  condemned  on  that  ground,  the  matter  could 
not  have  stopped  with  his  execution.  Other  leading  Chris- 
tians as  well  must  have  fallen  under  condemnation,  and 
have  suffered  a  like  fate.  In  other  words,  Paul's  death 
must  have  been  but  the  beginning  of  a  persecution  of  the 
sect  to  which  he  belonged.  But  there  is  absolutely  no  evi- 
dence that  such  a  persecution  took  place.  Nero's  attack 
upon  the  Christians  half  a  dozen  years  later  was  due  to 
causes  of  an  entirely  different  character.1  The  crime  for 
which  Paul  was  ultimately  executed  was  that  which  had 
been  charged  against  him  in  Csesarea, —  the  crime  of  incit- 
ing riots.  It  was  not  simply  that  he  had  created  a  dis- 
turbance in  Jerusalem,  but  that  he  was  a  "  pestilent  fellow, 
and  a  mover  of  insurrection  among  all  the  Jews  through- 
out the  world."  2  Doubtless,  when  he  came  up  for  trial 
before  Nero,  his  Jewish  accusers  were  on  hand  to  testify 
against  him ;  and  very  likely  they  had  taken  pains  to 
gather  evidence  in  other  cities  than  Jerusalem,  which  went 
to  substantiate  their  charge.  Jews  from  Asia  had  pre- 
cipitated the  attack  upon  liim  in  Jerusalem,  and  they,  of 
course,  knew  of  his  conduct  in  Ephesus  and  of  the  dis- 
turbances which  he  had  caused  there.  It  may  be  that 
they  collected  testimony  also  in  the  cities  of  Galatia,  and 
in  Philippi,  Thessalonica,  Corinth,  and  many  other  places 
where  his  presence  and  his  teaching  had  led  to  more  or 
less  serious  outbreaks.  Certainly  it  was  possible  to  make 
out  a  very  damaging  case  against  him  quite  independently 
of  his  connection  with  the  Christian  sect.  Even  though 
it  could  not  be  proved  that  he  -had  himself  incited  any 
riots,  or  that  he  had  uttered  disloyal  and  revolutionary 
sentiments,  or  committed  any  overt  breaches  of  the  peace, 
still  the  fact  that  wherever  he  went  disturbances  resulted 
was  in  itself  enough  to  condemn  him  in  the  eyes  of  the. 
state.  Such  a  man  was  dangerous  to  the  peace  of  society, 
and  the  Roman  government  never  hesitated  to  dispose  of 
dangerous  characters  however  innocent  their  intentions, 
and  however  pure  their  purposes  might  be.  Ruling  as 

1  See  below,  p.  628.  2  Acts  xxiv.  5. 


THE   WOKK  OF  PAUL  421 

it  did  so  many  diverse  races  and  nationalities,  Rome  wae 
quick  to  repress  anything  like  sedition  or  rebellion  even 
of  the  most  insignificant  character.  Peace  must  be  pre- 
served at  all  hazards,  and  the  arm  of  the  law  fell  heavily 
upon  every  one  that  endangered  it  in  any  way.  Paul's 
offence  in  the  eyes  of  the  state  could  not  seem  as  light 
and  trifling  as  it  seems  to  us.  It  must  have  had  a  very 
serious'  aspect,  and  the  result  cannot  be  wondered  at.  An 
acquittal  could  hardly  be  expected,  unless  his  enemies 
saw  fit  not  to  press  the  charge  against  him  and  took  no 
pains  to  gather  evidence.  Paul  may  have  hoped  for  a 
time  after  his  arrival  in  Rome  that  they  would  take  that 
course,  and  his  interview  with  leading  Jews  of  the  city 
was  very  likely  directed  to  that  end.  But  his  hope  was 
vain.  When  his  trial  finally  came  on,  long  delayed  as 
trials  very  commonly  were  in  those  days,  his  enemies  were 
evidently  ready  with  their  evidence ;  and  though  the  first 
hearing  resulted  in  a  suspension  of  judgment,1  he  knew 
that  the  case  against  him  was  too  strong  to  be  met  and 
he  looked  forward  to  a  speedy  sentence.2 

The  earliest  extant  reference  to  Paul's  death  is  found  in 
Clement's  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,3  written  toward  the 
close  of  the  first  century.  Clement  records  that  Paul  suf- 
fered martyrdom,  but  he  gives  no  particulars  as  to  the 
place,  time,  or  manner  of  his  execution.  Origen  of  Alex- 
andria, writing  early  in  the  third  century,  reports  that  he 
suffered  martyrdom  under  Nero  in  Rome,4  and  a  somewhat 
older  contemporary,  Tertullian  of  North  Africa,  says  that 
he  was  beheaded  there.5  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  Ter- 
tullian's  statement.  Paul  was  a  Roman  citizen,  and  he  was 
entitled  to  die  by  the  sword.6  Though  he  was  executed  a? 

i  2  Tim.  iv.  16.  2  2  Tim.  iv.  6  sq. 

8  Clement :  Ad  Cor.  5,  quoted  above,  p.  416. 

4  Quoted  by  Eusebius:  H.  E.  III.  1. 

6  Scorpiace,  15 ;  cf .  De  prssscriptione  hser.  36. 

6  Caius  of  Rome,  writing  early  in  the  third  century,  reports  that  Paul  was 
buried  on  the  Ostian  way  outside  the  walls  of  Rome  (Eusebius:  H.  E.  II.  25), 
and  the  tradition  is  very  old  and  probably  trustworthy  that  he  was  beheaded 
there.  The  supposed  site  has  been  occupied  for  centuries  by  the  Abbey  of 
the  Three  Fountains.  The  fountains  which  give  the  abbey  its  name  are  said 
to  have  sprung  up  at  the  spots  where  Paul's  head  struck  the  ground  three 
times  after  his  decapitation,  and  the  pillar  to  which  he  is  said  to  have  been 


422  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

an  insurrectionist  and  not  as  a  Christian,  he  died  a  martyr 
to  his  Christian  faith,  and  the  memory  of  his  martyrdom 
was  cherished  by  the  church. 

Thus  ended  the  life  of  the  greatest  of  the  apostles,  the 
man  who  had  done  more  than  any  other  to  spread  the 
knowledge  of  Christ's  name  and  to  bring  the  world  to 
him.  From  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  his  Christian 
career  he  was  controlled  by  a  fixed  and  definite  purpose, 
and  he  carried  it  out  with  remarkable  tenacity  and  suc- 
cess. After  a  few  years  spent  first  in  Damascus  and  then 
in  Tarsus  and  Antioch,  laboring  in  places  where  Christian- 
ity was  already  known,  and  apparently  largely  among  his 
own  countrymen,  he  started  upon  the  great  missionary 
campaigns  which  continued  almost  without  interruption 
for  ten  or  a  dozen  years,  and  resulted  in  the  evangeliza- 
tion of  the  four  great  provinces  of  Galatia,  Macedonia, 
Achaia,  and  Asia,  in  the  first  three  of  which  at  least  little 
or  nothing  had  been  done  before  his  arrival.  That  he 
should  have  been  able  to  accomplish  as  much  as  he  did  in 
so  short  a  time  is  an  eloquent  testimony  to  his  zeal  and 
power.  Brief  as  his  stay  in  each  province  was,  he  suc- 
ceeded in  establishing  Christianity  permanently  in  all  of 
them.  He  confined  himself  almost  wholly  to  the  great 
centres  of  population,  but  the  influence  of  the  word  which 
he  preached  spread  rapidly  until  large  districts  of  the 
country  round  about  were  reached  and  won.  He  had  an 
eye  always  for  the  strategic  points,  and  he  did  his  work 
not  in  any  haphazard  and  aimless  way,  but  with  system 
and  farsightedness.  He  succeeded,  wherever  he  went,  in 
enlisting  the  enthusiastic  friendship  and  support  of  his 
converts,  and  they  carried  on  his  work  during  his  lifetime 
and  after  his  decease,  and  became  the  means  of  spreading 
the  Gospel  into  districts  which  he  had  not  himself  visited. 
He  thus  became  a  power  over  a  much  larger  territory  than 
he  had  traversed,  and  his  name  was  honored  and  revered 
throughout  the  Gentile  church.  His  experiences  and  his 

bound  is  still  shown !  In  the  fourth  century,  at  the  same  time  that  Peter's 
remains  were  transferred  to  the  Vatican,  Paul's  body  is  reported  to  have  been 
buried  in  the  Basilica  of  St.  Paul,  which  stood  upon  the  site  now  occupied  by 
the  church  of  San  Paolo  fuori  le  mura. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  423 

fortunes  during  his  missionary  career  are  known  to  us 
only  imperfectly.  Something  of  what  he  did  in  the  vari- 
ous parts  of  his  great  field  we  can  gather  from  his  epistles 
and  from  the  Book  of  Acts.  We  have  enough  in  those 
writings  to  show  what  an  able,  active,  courageous,  self- 
sacrificing  missionary  he  was,  and  to  reveal  the  principles 
upon  which  he  labored  and  the  wisdom  with  which  he 
put  them  into  practice  ;  but  the  work  which  he  did  speaks 
more  eloquently  than  any  words  and  shows  how  fragmen- 
tary our  records  are.  How  little  we  know  is  sufficiently 
illustrated  by  a  single  passage  in  one  of  his  epistles,  where 
he  enumerates  a  long  series  of  trials  and  hardships,  hardly 
any  of  which  are  referred  to  elsewhere.1  The  shipwrecks 
alone  which  he  there  mentions  prove  that  he  must  have 
travelled  much  more  widely  than  our  records  indicate. 

We  have  traced  the  work  of  Paul  in  such  detail  because 
of  the  light  thrown  by  it  upon  the  spread  of  Christianity 
and  upon  the  fortunes  of  the  church  during  the  period  with 
which  we  are  concerned.  The  study  of  Paul's  career  is  a 
study  of  Christian  history.  He  was  the  greatest  mission- 
ary of  the  age,  and  in  him  the  Gospel  fought  its  mightiest 
battles  and  won  its  most  splendid  victories.  He  more  than 
any  one  else  was  instrumental  in  giving  it  world-wide 
influence  and  power,  and  in  his  successes  and  defeats,  in 
the  obstacles  which  he  had  to  meet,  and  in  the  encourage- 
ments which  he  found,  we  see  foreshadowed  the  experi- 
ences of  the  church  at  large  during  its  early  days  of 
world-wide  evangelism. 

13.   THE  COMPANIONS  AND  DISCIPLES  OF  PAUL 

About  fourscore  companions  and  disciples  of  Paul  are 
mentioned  by  name  in  his  epistles,2  and  nearly  a  score 

1  2  Cor.  xi.  23  sq. 

2  In  addition  to  Aquila  and  Prisca,  Apollos,  Aristarchus,  Barnabas,  Crispus, 
Erastus,  Jason,  Mark,  Silvanus  (Silas),  Timothy,  Trophimus,  and  Tychicus, 
who  are  mentioned  both  in  Paul's  epistles  and  in  the  Acts,  we  have  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Galatians  the  name  of  Titus  (referred  to  also  in  2  Corinthians, 
2  Timothy,  and  Titus)  ;  in  1  Corinthians  the  names  of  Sosthenes  (possibly  the 
ruler  of  the  synagogue  referred  to  in  Acts  xviii.  17),  Gains,  Stephanas,  Fortuna- 
tus,  and  Achaicus.    Whether  Chloe,  members  of  whose  household  are  referred 


424  THE   APOSTOLIC    AGE 

more  in  the  Book  of  Acts.1  A  large  proportion  of  them 
were  doubtless  his  own  converts ;  but  some  of  them  owed 
their  Christianity  to  others.2  Only  a  few  of  them  have 
any  particular  claim  to  be  remembered;  of  only  a  few,  in 
fact,  do  we  know  anything  beyond  their  names. 

The  man  who  stood  closest  to  Paul  and  was  most  inti- 
mately associated  with  him  during  the  early  years  of  his 
Christian  career  was  the  Cypriote  Jew,  Barnabas,3  who 
was  a  member  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem  in  its  primitive 
days,  and  who  seems  to  have  been  one  of  the  first  to  recog- 
nize the  Christian  zeal  and  devotion  of  the  young  convert 
Saul.4  His  friendship  meant  much  to  the  latter,  and 

to  in  1  Cor.  i.  11,  was  herself  one  of  Paul's  friends  or  disciples,  we  do  not  know. 
In  one  or  more  of  the  epistles  of  the  imprisonment  occur,  in  addition  to  some 
of  those  already  mentioned,  the  names  of  the  Galatian  women  Lois  and  Eunice, 
grandmother  and  mother  of  Timothy  (if  2  Tim.  i.  5  constitutes  a  part  of  Paul's 
farewell  note  to  Timothy) ;  also  the  names  of  Philemon,  Apphia,  Archippus, 
Epaphras,  and  Onesimus  of  Colossae,  and  Nymphas  of  Colossae  or  Laodicea ; 
Epaphroditus,  Clement,  Euodia,  Syntyche,  and  Synzygus  (if  it  be  a  proper  name) 
of  Philippi ;  Eubulus,  Pudens,  Linus,  and  Claudia,  who  apparently  resided  in 
Rome ;  Carpus  of  Troas ;  Onesiphorus  of  Ephesus ;  Crescens  and  Demas,  the 
former  of  whom  possibly  belonged  to  Galatia,  the  latter  to  Thessalonica  (2  Tim. 
iv.  10) ;  and  Jesus  Justus,  Luke,  and  Titus,  whose  residence  is  unknown.  In  the 
note  addressed  to  the  church  of  Ephesus  and  preserved  in  Rom.  xvi.  occur, 
in  addition  to  some  of  those  already  mentioned,  the  names  of  Phoebe  of  Cen- 
chreae ;  Epenaetus,  Mary,  Andronicus,  Junias,  Ampliatus,  Urbanus,  Stachys, 
Apelles,  Herodion,  Tryphaena,  Tryphosa,  Persis,  Rufus,  Asyncritus,  Phlegou, 
Hermes,  Patrobas,  Hennas,  Philologus,  Julia,  Nereus,  Olympas,  all  of  them 
apparently  of  Ephesus ;  and  Lucius,  Sosipater,  Tertius,  Erastus,  and  Quartus, 
the  last  two  at  least  of  Corinth.  Whether  Aristobulus  and  Narcissus,  mem- 
bers of  whose  households  are  greeted  in  vss.  10  and  11,  were  also  friends  or 
disciples  of  Paul,  we  do  not  know.  Finally,  we  have  in  Paul's  note  to  Titus 
the  names  of  Artemas  and  Zenas,  and  in  his  earlier  note  to  Timothy  (2  Tim. 
i.  15)  the  names  of  Phygelus  and  Hermogenes,  none  of  whom  is  mentioned 
elsewhere.  In  the  enlarged  epistles  to  Timothy,  Hymenseus,  Alexander,  and 
Philetus  are  also  referred  to  with  censure  (1  Tim.  i.  20;  2  Tim.  ii.  17). 
Whether  they  were  personal  disciples  of  Paul  or  belonged  to  a  later  day,  we 
do  not  know. 

1  In  addition  to  Philip  the  evangelist  (xxi.  8),  Agabus  the  prophet  (xi.  28), 
and  Paul's  fellow-laborers  in  the  church  of  Antioch,  Lucius  of  Gyrene  (by 
some  identified  with  the  Lucius  of  Rom.  xvi.  21),  Symeon,  Niger,  and  Manncn. 
we  have  in  the  Acts  the  following  names  not  mentioned  in  Paul's  epistles: 
Gaius  of  Macedonia  (xix.  29)  and    Gains  of   Derbe  (xx.  4),  Dionysius  and 
Damaris  of  Athens  (xvii.  itt),  Eutychns  of  Troas  (xx.  9),  Lydia  of  Philippi 
(xvi.  14),  Secundus  of  Thessalonica,  and  Sopater  of  Berrca  (xx.  4),  Titius 
Justus  of  Corinth   (xviii.  7),  and  the  proconsul  of  Cyprus,  Sergius  Paulus 
(xiii.  7  sq. ;  see  above,  p.  175). 

2  For  instance,  Barnabas,  Silvanus,  Apollos,  Mark,  Andronicus,  Junias,  and 
very  likely  others. 

8  Cf.  Acts  iv.  36  *  Acts  ix.  27,  xi.  125. 


THE   WORK  OF  PAUL  425 

doubtless  contributed  in  no  small  degree  to  his  credit 
and  influence  with  Christians  of  Jewish  birth.  And  yet, 
though  Barnabas  was  a  disciple  before  Paul,  and  though 
he  seems  to  have  stood  sponsor  for  him  in  the  earlier  days 
when  the  memory  of  his  persecuting  career  was  fresh  in 
the  mind  of  the  church,  it  was  not  long  before  Paul  took 
the  lead;  and  during  the  years  of  their  joint  missionary 
activity,  so  far  as  those  years  are  known  to  us,  he  was 
the  more  prominent  figure  of  the  two,  and  Barnabas 
appears  in  our  sources  as  little  more  than  his  assistant.1 
Paul's  was  evidently  the  stronger  and  more  forceful  char- 
acter, and  he  influenced  Barnabas  far  more  than  the  latter 
influenced  him.  When  the  two  men  separated  after  the 
unfortunate  occurrence  at  Antioch,2Paul  turned  his  steps 
to  Galatia,  while  Barnabas  made  his  way  to  Cyprus  in 
company  with  his  nephew  Mark.3  At  this  point  we  lose 
sight  of  him.  All  that  we  know  certainly  about  his  sub- 
sequent career  is  contained  in  the  casual  reference  to  him 
in  1  Cor.  ix.  6,  which  indicates  that  he  was  still  actively 
engaged  in  missionary  work,  and  implies  that  he  and  Paul 
were  once  more  on  good  terms.  He!  seems  to  have  con- 
tinued his  apostolic  labors  for  a  number  of  years  longer, 
at  least  a  part  of  the  time  in  Asia  Minor,4  and  if  my 
hypothesis  in  regard  to  the  authorship  of  First  Peter  is 
correct,  he  was  in  Rome  toward  the  close  of  his  life,  a 
couple  of  decades  or  more  after  the  death  of  Paul.6  With 
the  later  legends  that  cluster  about  his  name,  we  need  not 
concern  ourselves.6  Clement  of  Alexandria  calls  him  one 
of  the  seventy  disciples,7  and  the  tradition  is  not  in  itself 
incredible;  but  the  same  statement  is  made  by  early 
writers  touching  so  many  persons  belonging  to  the  apos- 
tolic age  that  no  weight  can  be  attached  to  it.  An  epistle 

i  Cf.  Acts  xiii.  and  xiv. ;  Gal.  ii.  1,  9.  2  Gal.  ii.  11.  8  Acts  xv.  39. 

4  Paul's  reference  to  him  in  Col.  iv.  10  implies  that  he  was  well  known  to 
the  readers  of  that  epistle. 
«  See  helow,  p.  598  sq. 

6  The  Clementine  Recognitions  and  Homilies  frequently  mention  Barnabas, 
and  speak  of  his  activity  in  Alexandria  and  Rome.    One  tradition  sends  him 
to  Milan  and  makes  him  the  first  hishop  of  the  church  there,  but  the  silence 
of  Ambrose  is  a  sufficient  proof  of  its  falsity. 

7  In  Strom.  II.  20.    See  my  edition  of  Eusebius,  Bk.  I.  chap.  12. 


426  tftE   APOSTOLIC   AGfi 

belonging  to  the  late  first  or  early  second  century  is  still 
extant,  which  has  been  ascribed  to  Barnabas  since  the 
time  of  Clement  of  Alexandria.  The  epistle,  however, 
abounds  in  misconceptions  touching  the  ceremonial  law 
of  the  Jews  and  is  marked  by  bitter  hostility  to  historic 
Judaism,  and  it  is  clear  that  it  cannot  have  been  written 
by  a  Jew,  much  less  by  a  Levite,  as  Barnabas  is  said  to 
have  been  in  Acts  iv.  36. l  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
was  also  ascribed  to  him  by  an  ancient  tradition,  but  that, 
too,  contains  some  statements  in  regard  to  the  Jewish 
ritual  which  a  Levite  would  not  be  likely  to  make,  and 
is  much  more  probably  the  work  of  another  man.2  The 
only  extant  writing  to  which  the  name  of  Barnabas  can 
be  attached  with  any  show  of  reason,  is  the  First  Epistle 
of  Peter.  If  that  epistle  is  his  work,  interesting  con- 
clusions may  be  drawn  from  it  as  to  the  degree  to  which 
Paul's  thinking  influenced  him,  and  as  to  the  fidelity 
with  which  he  carried  on  the  work  of  his  greater  com- 
panion after  the  latter 's  death.3 

Of  Paul's  companion,  Silvanus,  or  Silas,  as  he  is  called 
in  the  Book  of  Acts,4  we  know  very  little.  He  seems  to 
have  been  a  member  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem,5  and 
therefore  did  not  owe  his  conversion  to  Paul.  He  accom- 
panied the  apostle  upon  his  second  missionary  journey, 
according  to  the  Book  of  Acts,6  and  his  presence  with 
him  in  Macedonia  and  Achaia  is  testified  to  in  Paul's 
own  epistles.7  After  that  time  he  disappears  from  view 
until  the  latter  part  of  the  century,  when  he  was  appar- 
ently in  Rome  with  the  author  of  the  First  Epistle  of 
Peter.8  Our  complete  ignorance  concerning  his  where- 
abouts during  the  thirty  years  or  more  separating  that 
epistle  from  the  time  of  Paul's  first  stay  in  Corinth  is 
simply  one  of  the  many  indications  of  the  limits  of  our 
knowledge  of  the  apostolic  age. 

1  See  my  edition  of  Eusebius,  Bk.  III.  chap.  25,  note  20. 

2  See  below,  p.  480.    The  only  father  to  connect  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
with  Barnabas  is  Tertullian  in  his  De  Pudicitia,  20. 

8  See  below,  p.  485  sq. 

4  Weizsiicker  questions  the  identity  of  the  two.    See  above,  p.  230. 

6  Acts  xv.  22,  27.  6  Acts  xv.  40  sq.f  xvi.  19  sq.,  xvii.  4  sq.,  xviii.  5  sq. 

7  2  Cor.  i.  19 ;  1  Thess.  i.  1 ;  2  Thess.  i.  1.  '     «  1  Pet.  v.  12. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  427 

Another  member  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem  who  was 
a  companion  of  Paul  for  some  time  was  John  Mark,  a 
nephew  or  cousin  of  Barnabas,1  who  started  with  the 
apostles  upon  their  first  missionary  journey,  but  turned 
back  at  Perga,  to  Paul's  great  displeasure,2  and  some 
years  later  went  to  Cyprus  with  Barnabas,  when  the  latter 
separated  from  Paul  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  mis- 
sionary journey.3  We  know  nothing  more  about  him 
until  the  time  of  the  third  missionary  journey,  when  he 
was  apparently  in  Ephesus  and  again  enjoyed  the  affec- 
tion and  confidence  of  the  apostle.4  Whether  he  actually 
joined  Paul  in  Macedonia  in  accordance  with  the  latter 's 
wish,  and  whether  he  remained  with  him  during  the 
months  that  followed,  we  do  not  know;  but  he  was  with 
him  in  his  Roman  imprisonment,5  and  was  a  companion 
of  Peter  during  the  latter's  stay  in  Rome,6  and  was  also 
there  some  years  later  when  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter 
was  written.7  An  ancient  tradition  connects  him  with 
the  foundation  of  the  church  of  Alexandria,  but  little 
reliance  can  be  placed  upon  it.8 

Other  Jewish  Christians  whom  we  know  to  have  been 
among  Paul's  companions  and  fellow- workers  were  Apollos 
of  Alexandria,  who'  labored  both  in  Corinth  and  in  Ephe- 
sus ; 9  Andronicus,  Junias,  Herodion,  and  Maiy,  who  were 
in  Ephesus  at  the  time  Paul  wrote  the  note  contained  in 
Rom.  xvi. ; 10  Lucius,  Jason,  and  Sosipater,  who  were  in 
Corinth  at  the  time  that  note  was  written ;  n  Jesus  Justus, 
who  was  with  the  apostle  in  his  Roman  imprisonment;12 
Aristarchus  of  Thessalonica,  who  was  one  of  his  com- 
panions not  only  then  but  on  many  earlier  occasions;13 
and  finally  Aquila  and  his  wife  Prisca  (or  Priscilla,  as 
she  is  called  in  the  Acts),  Jews  of  Rome,  with  whom  he 

1  Cf.  Col.  iv.  10.  5  Col.  iv.  10  ;  Philemon  24. 

'2  Acts  xiii.  13,  xv.  38.  6  See  below,  p.  603. 

3  Acts  xv.  39.  '  1  Pet.  v.  13. 

4  Cf.  2  Tim.  iv.  11,  and  see  above,  p.  409. 

8  See  Eusebius :  H.  E.  II.  16  and  24,  and  compare  my  note  upon  the  former 
passage. 

9  Acts  xviii.  24  sq. ;  1  Cor.  i.  12  sq.,  xvi.  12.  n  Rom.  xvi.  21. 
10  See  above,  p.  277  sq.                                                       12  Col.  iv.  11. 

18  Acts  xix.  29,  xx.  4,  xxvii.  2;  Col.  iv.  10;  Philemon  24. 


428  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE 

made  his  home  in  Corinth,  and  who  later  resided  in 
Ephesus.1  Their  house  in  the  latter  city  was  the  meeting- 
place  of  one  of  the  Christian  circles  of  the  town,  and  they 
were  evidently  very  active  and  zealous  and  possessed  a 
large  measure  of  influence  among  the  brethren.2  Their 
devotion  to  Paul  was  signalized  in  some  remarkable  way, 
apparently  at  a  time  when  he  was  in  great  danger;  for 
he  says  that  they  laid  down  their  own  necks  for  his  life.3 
Evidently  the  tie  that  bound  them  to  the  apostle  was  a 
very  strong  one,  and  he  returned  their  devotion  with  deep 
affection.  They  are  always  mentioned  together,  both  in  the 
Acts  and  in  the  epistles,  and  they  furnish  the  most  beauti- 
ful example  known  to  us  in  the  apostolic  age  of  the  power 
for  good  that  could  be  exerted  by  a  husband  and  wife 
working  in  unison  for  the  advancement  of  the  Gospel.4 

More  important  to  Paul  himself  than  any  of  those 
already  mentioned  was  the  Galatian  Timothy,  whose 
mother  was  a  Jewess,  but  whose  father  was  a  Greek.6 
He  was  one  of  Paul's  converts,  and  joined  him  when  he 
passed  through  Galatia  on  his  second  missionary  jour- 
ney.6 During  the  remainder  of  the  apostle's  life  he  was 
his  most  beloved  and  trusted  disciple  and  companion. 
After  the  farewell  note  which  was  sent  him  from  Rome 
shortly  before  Paul's  execution,  Timothy  disappears  from 
view  except  for  a  passing  reference  at  the  close  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,7  which  was  written  probably 
twenty-five  years  or  more  after  the  apostle's  death. 
From  that  reference  we  learn  that  he  had  recently  been 
released  from  some  imprisonment,  and  that  he  was  expect- 
ing shortly  to  see  the  readers  of  the  epistle,  who  were 
very  likely  resident  in  Rome.8  Of  the  place  and  circum- 
stances of  his  imprisonment  we  know  nothing,  nor  have 

1  Acts  xviii.  2,  18  sq. ;  Rom.  xvi.  3;  1  Cor.  xvi.  19;  2  Tim.  iv.  19. 

2  Cf.  Rom.  xvi.  3  sq. ;  1  Cor.  xvi.  19.  8  Rom.  xvi.  4. 

4  The  fact  that  Prisea  is  mentioned  before  Aquila  in  a  number  of  passages 
seems  to  indicate  that  she  possessed  peculiar  pre-eminence,  which  was  due 
possibly  to  her  greater  ability  and  forcefulness  of  character,  possibly  to  the 
fact  that  she  was  of  higher  rank  than  Aquila.  See  Ramsay :  St.  Paul,  the 
Traveller  and  the  Roman  Citizen,  p.  2H8. 

«  Acts  xvi.  1.  7  Heb.  xiii.  23. 

6  See  above,  p.  231  sq.  8  See  below,  p.  468. 


THE   WORK  OF   PAUL  429 

we  any  information  as  to  his  whereabouts  during  the  years 
preceding  and  following.  An  ancient  tradition  makes 
him  bishop  of  Ephesus,1  and  that  he  actually  did  labor 
there  for  some  time  is  clear  from  Paul's  farewell  note  to 
him;  but  no  particular  reliance  can  be  placed  upon  the 
report  that  he  was  the  official  head  of  the  church,  in  view 
of  the  tendency  in  the  second  century  to  assign  to  all  the 
followers  of  the  apostles  episcopal  sees.  There  remain 
no  writings  from  his  pen,'  and  so  far  as  we  know  he  wrote 
nothing,  except  possibly  a  lost  letter  to  the  Corinthians ; 2 
but  his  name  is  joined  with  Paul's  in  the  salutations  of 
six  epistles,  —  in  itself  a  clear  enough  indication  of  the 
apostle's  affection  for  him  and  confidence  in  him. 

One  of  the  most  mysterious  figures  in  the  apostolic  age 
is  the  figure  of  the  Gentile  Titus,  whom  Paul  took  with 
him  to  the  council  of  Jerusalem  in  the  year  45  or  46,  as 
an  example  of  the  work  that  God  was  doing  among  the 
heathen  through  him.3  His  birthplace  and  his  national- 
ity it  is  impossible  to  determine.  It  is  not  unlikely  that 
he  was  a  Galatian,  as  Paul's  largest  work  among  the 
Gentiles,  before  the  time  of  the  council,  was  done  in  that 
country,  but  he  may  have  been  from  Syria  or  Cilicia. 
The  delicate  and  responsible  mission  with  which  he  was 
entrusted  in  connection  with  the  church  of  Corinth,  and 
which  he  discharged  with  such  success,*  shows  that  he 
enjoyed  the  confidence  of  the  apostle,  and  it  may  fairly 
be  concluded  that  he  had  been  an  intimate  and  trusted 
companion  for  some  years,  and  had  had  other  opportuni- 
ties of  proving  his  fidelity  and  ability.  And  yet  he  is 
referred  to  by  Paul  only  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,5 
in  the  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,6  and  in  the 
later  of  the  two  notes  to  Timothy  preserved  in  Second 
Timothy.7  He  must  have  been  with  the  apostle  at  least 
a  part  of  the  time  that  elapsed  between  the  council  at 
Jerusalem  and  the  outbreak  of  the  troubles  at  Corinth, 

1  See  Eusebius :  H.  E.  III.  4.  4  See  above,  p.  320  sq. 

2  See  above,  p.  313.       6  Gal.  ii.  1,  3. 

»  See  above,  p.  194.  6  2  Cor.  ii.  13,  vii.  6, 13, 14,  viii.  6, 16,  23,  xii.  18. 

7  2  Tim.  iv.  10.  Paul  also  addressed  a  letter  to  him,  which  is  found  in  our 
canonical  Epistle  to  Titus.  See  above,  p.  410. 


430  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

and  between  the  settlement  of  those  troubles  and  the 
closing  days  of  Paul's  imprisonment  in  Rome;  but  there 
is  no  trace  of  him  during  those  intervals  in  any  of  our 
sources.  His  name  is  not  joined  with  Paul's  in  the 
salutations  of  any  of  the  latter's  epistles,  and  there  is  no 
reference  to  him  in  connection  with  the  evangelization 
of  any  city  or  province.  Moreover,  he  is  not  once  men- 
tioned in  the  Book  of  Acts,  which  has  so  much  to  say 
about  Barnabas,  Silas,  and  Timothy,  and  which  contains 
the  names  of  more  than  a  score  of  Paul's  disciples  and 
companions.  It  might  almost  seem  as  if  his  name  must 
have  been  omitted  by  the  author  of  the  Acts  with  a  pur- 
pose, as  has  been  maintained  by  many  scholars ;  but  what 
that  purpose  can  have  been,  it  is  impossible  to  discover. 
The  old  idea  that  the  work  was  written  with  an  irenic 
aim,  in  the  hope  of  contributing  to  a  better  understanding 
between  the  Jewish  and  Gentile  wings  of  the  Christian 
church,  is  not  borne  out  by  the  book  itself,  and  has  been 
generally  abandoned.1  And  so  the  suggestion  that  the 
name  of  Titus  was  omitted  as  offensive  to  Jewish  Chris- 
tians because  of  the  occurrence  at  the  council  of  Jerusalem 
must  be  rejected  as  quite  without  foundation.  It  is  alto- 
gether probable,  in  fact,  that  the  omission  was  due  not  to 
any  design  on  the  part  of  the  author,  but  simply  to  the 
silence  of  his  sources.  It  may  well  be  that  the  account 
of  the  council  which  came  into  his  hands  said  nothing 
about  Titus,  and  as  he  was  probably  not  acquainted  with 
the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  he  had  no  information 
as  to  his  presence  in  Jerusalem.  It  is  to  be  noticed 
that  nothing  is  said  in  the  Book  of  Acts  about  the 
troubles  in  the  church  of  Corinth  and  about  the  dealings 
which  Paul  had  with  that  church  during  his  stay  in 
Ephesus,  and  so  we  could  not  expect  to  find  in  it  any 
record  of  Titus'  connection  with  that  affair.  That  he 
was  a  less  prominent  and  important  figure  than  Timothy 
can  be  gathered  from  Paul's  own  epistles,  and  there  was 
perhaps  no  more  reason  why  he  should  be  mentioned  than 

1  This  was  the  contention  of  the  Tubingen  school,  and  is  still  maintained  in 
a  modified  form;  among  others  by  Weizsiicker. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  43l 

many  others  of  Paul's  disciples.  We  should  not  be  mis- 
led by  the  existence  in  our  canon  of  an  epistle  addressed 
to  him,  and  conclude  that  both  he  and  Timothy  were  pre- 
eminent above  all  their  companions  in  the  affections  of 
Paul,  and  that  they  were  singled  out  from  all  the  rest 
and  commissioned  by  the  apostle  to  carry  on  his  work 
during  his  lifetime  and  after  his  death  in  a  way  that  no 
one  else  was.  We  have  seen  that  the  Epistle  to  Titus  in 
its  present  form  is  not  Paul's,  and  there  is  no  reason  why 
he  may  not  have  written  notes  resembling  the  one  which 
lies  at  the  basis  of  it  to  many  of  his  companions.  That 
this  particular  one  was  used  by  a  later  writer,  together 
with  the  notes  to  Timothy,  was  not  necessarily  due  to  the 
fact  that,  next  to  Timothy,  Titus  was  the  most  prominent 
and  best  known  of  Paul's  disciples.  It  may  be  that  only 
the  notes  to  Timothy  and  Titus  came  into  the  writer's 
hands. 

Of  the  later  career  of  Titus  after  his  journey  to  Dal- 
matia,  to  which  reference  is  made  in  2  Tim.  iv.  10,  we 
have  no  information.  The  tradition  that  he  was  the  first 
bishop  of  Crete l  has  no  more  weight  than  most  such  tradi- 
tions. His  presence  in  Crete  at  the  time  Paul  wrote  to 
him,  that  is,  about  the  year  52,  was  alone  sufficient  to  give 
rise  to  the  tradition.  It  is  to  be  noticed  that  when  he  left 
Rome  five  or  six  years  later,  it  was  not  to  Crete  that  he 
went,  but  to  Dalmatia.2  He  left  no  writings  so  far  as  we 
know,  and  it  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  neither  to  him  nor 
to  Timothy  has  tradition  ascribed  any  literary  productions. 

The  names  of  Linus3  and  Clement4  have  acquired  some 
importance  from  the  fact  that  our  most  ancient  catalogues 
of  the  earliest  bishops  of  Rome  have  both  a  Linus  and  a 
Clement  among  the  first  four  names,  and  that  many  writ- 
ings are  extant  which  are  ascribed  by  tradition  to  the 
latter.  That  the  Linus  from  whom  greetings  are  sent  in 
2  Tim.  iv.  21  is  the  same  man  who  appears  in  all  our  lists 
as  the  first  bishop  of  Rome  after  Peter,  is  quite  possible, 
and  it  is  also  possible  that  he  was  a  leading  figure  in  the 

1  See  Eusebius :  H.  E.  III.  4.  «  2  Tim.  iv.  21. 

2  2  Tim.  iv.  10.  *  Phil.  iv.  3. 


432  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

Roman  church  during  its  early  days,  and  that  he  bore 
with  others  the  title  of  bishop,  which  was  widely  in  use 
in  the  closing  decades  of  the  first  century;  but  in  so  far 
as  the  lists  represent  him  as  the  official  head  of  the 
church,  they  carry  back  into  primitive  days  the  condi- 
tions of  a  later  time.1 

That  the  Clement  who  appears  in  the  various  catalogues 
as  the  second  or  third  bishop  of  the  Roman  church  was 
also  a  prominent  figure  in  that  church  during  the  latter 
part  of  the  first  century  cannot  be  doubted,  but  the  same 
may  be  said  of  his  official  position  that  has  just  been  said 
of  the  position  of  Linus.  His  name  is  much  better  known 
and  is  much  more  prominent  in  the  early  history  of  the 
church  than  the  name  of  the  latter.  A  number  of  writ- 
ings of  different  periods  have  been  assigned  to  him  by 
tradition,  and  in  the  case  of  the  epistle  sent  by  the  church 
of  Rome  to  the  church  of  Corinth  almost  at  the  close 
of  the  first  century,  the  tradition  is  probably  correct. 
Eusebius,  doubtless  following  the  suggestion  of  earlier 
fathers,  identifies  this  well-known  Clement  of  Rome  with 
the  man  mentioned  in  Phil.  iv.  3;2  but  the  latter  was 
living  in  Philippi,  not  in  Rome,  and  there  is  no  ground 
whatever  for  making  the  identification.  The  tendency  to 
connect  the  prominent  figures  of  the  post-apostolic  age 
with  the  apostles  themselves  is  a  very  natural  one,  but 
some  stronger  basis  than  mere  identity  of  name  must  be 
found  before  any  such  connection  can  be  regarded  as 
probable.  There  were  doubtless  many  Christians  in  the 
post-apostolic  age  whose  names  were  the  same  as  those 
borne  by  disciples  of  the  time  of  Paul,  and  only  the 
smallest  fraction  of  them  are  known  to  us.  It  is  quite 
possible  that  the  Roman  Clement  had  known  Paul,  and 
Peter  too,  in  his  earlier  days,3  but  no  reference  to  him 
occurs  in  the  New  Testament. 

The  same  may  be  said  of  Hernias,  the  author  of  the 
remarkable  allegorical  work  entitled  The  Shepherd,  which 
was  written  by  a  Roman  Christian  some  time  before  the 

1  See  below,  p.  659  sq.        2  Eusebius :  //.  E.  III.  4,  10.    See  my  note  in  loc. 
s  Cf.  Irenaeus:  Adv.  Hser.  III.  3,  3. 


THE   WORK   OF  PAUL  433 

middle  of  the  second  century.  Origen  suggested  that  its 
author  was  identical  with  the  Hernias  mentioned  in  Rom. 
xvi.  14, l  but  the  date  of  the  work  makes  the  identifica- 
tion impossible,  and  it  is  to  be  noticed,  moreover,  that  the 
Hernias  mentioned  by  Paul  was  a  resident  of  Ephesus, 
not  of  Rome.2 

Among  all  the  companions  of  Paul  none  has  been  so 
highly  honored  by  tradition  as  Luke,  "the  beloved  physi- 
cian,"3 to  whom  has  been  ascribed  the  authorship  of  the 
third  Gospel  and  of  the  Book  of  Acts.  Of  Luke  himself 
we  know  very  little.  He  is  mentioned  only  in  Col.  iv. 
14,  Philemon  24,  and  2  Tim.  iv.  11,  and  nothing  is  told 
us  as  to  his  nationality  or  the  time  and  circumstances  of 
his  conversion,  and  we  do  not  know  whether  he  had  long 
been  a  friend  and  companion  of  Paul  or  was  one  of  his 
more  recent  converts.  It  is  evident,  however,  that  he 
was  very  intimate  with  the  apostle  and  peculiarly  dear  to 
him  during  his  imprisonment  in  Rome,  and  he  must  have 
been  in  a  position  to  learn  much  about  his  life  and  work. 
At  the  same  time,  the  tradition  which  makes  him  the 
author  of  the  third  Gospel  and  of  the  Book  of  Acts,  both 
of  which  are  by  the  same  hand,  can  hardly  be  maintained. 
The  reasons  for  thinking  that  the  latter  work,  at  any 
rate,  was  not  written  by  one  of  Paul's  own  disciples  have 
already  been  given. and  need  not  be  repeated.4  But  the 
question  arises,  how  came  these  two  important  works  to 
be  ascribed  to  a  man  who  fills  so  small  a  place  in  Paul's 
epistles  and  who  has  left  no  other  trace  of  himself  in  his- 
tory? It  would  seem  that  there  must  be  some  foundation 
for  the  tradition,  or  otherwise  it  might  fairly  be  expected 
that  the  writings  in  question  would  have  been  attributed 
to  some  better  known  man.  Two  possible  alternatives 
suggest  themselves.  Either  the  Gospel  and  the  Acts 
were  actually  written  by  a  man  named  Luke,  who  was 
not  a  companion  of  Paul,  but  whom  tradition  identified 
with  "  the  beloved  physician  "  referred  to  in  Col.  iv.  14, 

1  Origen:  In  Epist.  ad  Rom.,  Lib.  X.  c.  31.    See  also  Eusebius:  //.  E.  III. 
3,6. 

2  See  above,  p.  275  sq.  s  Col.  iv.  14.  *  See  above,  p.  237. 

2F 


434  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

or  the  latter  was  the  writer  of  the  document  containing 
the  "  we  "  passages,  of  which  the  author  of  the  Acts  made 
use  in  composing  his  book,  and  his  name  thus  became 
attached  to  the  completed  work.  The  latter  is  a  common 
opinion,  and  there  is  much  to  be  said  in  favor  of  it.  The 
man  who  wrote  the  "  we "  passages  was  evidently  an 
intimate  companion  of  Paul,  and  he  made  the  journey 
from  Caesarea  to  Rome  in  his  company.1  We  naturally 
look  for  him,  therefore,  among  those  whom  we  know  to 
have  been  with  the  apostle  in  his  Roman  imprisonment. 
The  only  ones  whose  names  are  known  to  us  are  Jesus 
Justus,  mentioned  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  Timo- 
thy, Tychicus,  Onesimus,  Aristarchus,  Mark,  Epaphras, 
Luke,  and  Demas,  mentioned  both  in  that  epistle  and  in 
the  Epistle  to  Philemon;2  Epaphroditus,  mentioned  in 
Philippians;  and  Onesiphorus,  Crescens,  Titus,  Eubu- 
lus,  Pudens,  Linus,  and  Claudia,  in  Second  Timothy. 
Claudia,  a  woman,  cannot  be  thought  of.  Onesimus 
was  converted  to  Christianity  while  Paul  was  in  Rome ; 3 
and  Onesiphorus,  Epaphroditus,  and  apparently  Epaphras 
also,  came  thither  only  after  the  apostle  was  already 
there.4  Timothy,  Tychicus,  and  Aristarchus  are  ruled 
out  by  the  way  in  which  they  are  referred  to  in  the  "  we  " 
passages  themselves.5  Mark  was  not  with  the  apostle  on 
his  second  missionary  journey,  when  the  author  of  the 
first  of  the  passages  in  question  was  in  his  company.6 
Titus,  who  must  have  been  very  offensive  to  many  of  the 
Christians  of  Jerusalem  after  the  experience  at  the  coun- 
cil, would  hardly  have  accompanied  Paul,  as  the  author 
of  the  "  we  "  document  did,7  upon  his  last  journey  thither, 
when  the  apostle  was  particularly  anxious  to  conciliate 
the  Mother  Church.  Of  his  other  companions  in  Rome, 
Jesus  Justus,  Luke,  Demas,  Crescens,  Eubulus,  Pudens, 
and  Linus,  none  is  more  likely  to  have  written  the  per- 
sonal notes  of  travel  than  Luke,  who  seems,  indeed,  to 

1  Acts  xxvii.  and  xxviii. 

2  Timothy  is  mentioned  also  in  Philippians,  Tychicus  in  Ephesians,  and 
Luke  and  Demas  in  Paul's  farewell  note  to  Timothy. 

8  Philemon  10.  «  2  Tim.  i.  17 ;  Phil.  iv.  18 ;  Col.  i.  8. 

*  Acts  xx.  4,  xxvii.  2.  «  Acts  xv.  39,  xvi.  10  sq.  7  Acts  xxi.  17,  18. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  485 

have  been  the  nearest  and  dearest  to  Paul  of  them  all.1 
It  is  true  that  we  have  no  reference  to  Luke  except  in  the 
epistles  of  the  imprisonment;  but  it  is  quite  possible  that 
he  was  with  Paul  during  the  periods  covered  by  the  "we  " 
passages,  when  none  of  the  extant  epistles  was  written, 
and  those  passages  themselves  seem  to  show  that  their 
author  was  not  with  the  apostle  very  constantly,  if  at  all, 
in  the  intervals  between.2  If  "the  beloved  physician" 
was  the  author  of  the  passages  with  Avhich  we  are  dealing, 
it  is  easy  to  explain  the  ascription  to  him  of  the  entire 
work  in  which  his  own  personal  notes  were  used.  His 
name  might  well  be  remembered  when  the  name  of  the 
later  writer  who  incorporated  those  notes  into  his  larger 
work  was  entirely  forgotten. 

At  the  same  time  the  fact  must  be  recognized  that  there 
is  no  positive  evidence  connecting  Luke  with  the  "  we  " 
passages,  and  that  some  other  companion  of  Paul  entirely 
unknown  to  us,  or  known  only  by  name,  may  have  been 
their  author.  For  the  former  of  the  two  alternatives 
referred  to  above  is  not  impossible,  and  explains  the 
ascription  of  the  Acts  to  Paul's  companion,  Luke,  fully 
as  well  as  the  alternative  which  has  been  discussed. 
Luke  was  not  an  uncommon  name,  and  not  only  one  but 
many  Christians  may  have  borne  it  in  the  latter  part  of 
the  first  century.  The  tendency  to  identify  the  disciples 
of  that  period  with  companions  of  the  apostles  that  hap- 
pened to  bear  the  same  names  has  been  already  referred 
to,  and  certainly  nothing  would  be  more  natural  than  to 
find  in  the  Luke,  to  whom  tradition  ascribed  the  third 
Gospel  and  the  Book  of  Acts,  the  beloved  physician 
referred  to  in  terms  of  such  affection  by  Paul  himself, 
as  Origen  found  in  the  author  of  Clement's  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians  the  Clement  of  Phil.  iv.  3,  and  in  the  author 
of  The  Shepherd  of  Hernias  the  Hermas  of  Rom.  xvi.  14.3 

1  Cf.  2  Tim.  iv.  10. 

2  For  a  statement  of  the  various  companions  of  Paul  to  whom  the  "  we  " 
document  has  been  ascribed  by  scholars,  see  Holtzmann :  Einleitung  in  das 
Neue  Testament,  3te  Auflage,  S.  394. 

3  The  third  Gospel  and  the  Acts  are  first  ascribed  to  Luke,  the  companion 
of  Paul,  in  the  Muratorian  Fragment,  which  dates  from  the  latter  part  of  the 
second  century. 


436  THE   APOSTOLIC    AGE 

Whether  the  "  we  "  passages  were  the  work  of  Luke  or 
of  some  other  companion  of  Paul,  it  was  entirely  natural 
that  a  writer  living  in  the  latter  part  of  the  first  century, 
a  generation  after  the  apostle's  death,  in  undertaking  to 
write  an  account  of  the  early  days  of  the  Christian  church, 
and  particularly  of  the  work  of  Paul,  should  make  use  of 
such  accounts  of  an  eyewitness,  as  we  know  that  he  made 
use  of  many  other  documents  both  in  the  Gospel  and  in 
the  Acts.  The  only  surprising  thing  is  that  he  did  not 
make  larger  use  of  them  than  he  seems  to  have  done.  It 
looks  as  if  there  had  come  into  his  hands  not  a  complete 
work  containing  an  account  of  Paul's  missionary  career, 
but  only  fragments  of  such  a  work,  or  detached  leaves  of 
a  journal,  or  mere  letters  describing  certain  episodes,  and 
it  may  well  be  that  he  inserted  them  all  in  his  history, 
and  that  their  extent  is  approximately  indicated  by  the 
actual  occurrence  of  the  first  personal  pronoun.1 

Our  study  of  the  events  recorded  in  the  Book  of  Acts 
has  shown  us  that  the  author  of  that  book  drew  much 
of  his  material  from  excellent  and  entirely  trustworthy 
sources ;  but  it  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  he  seems  to  have 
made  no  use  of  Paul's  epistles,  all  of  which  were  written 
long  before  he  composed  his  work,  and  many  of  which 
throw  light  upon  occurrences  that  he  relates  and  supply 
much  additional  information.  It  is  true  that  many  schol- 
ars hold  that  he  did  make  a  large  use  of  Paul's  epistles,2 
but  I  am  unable  to  discover  any  trace  of  such  use.  The 
two  sources — Qpistles  and  Acts  —  go  their  independent 
way,  apparently  quite  oblivious  of  each  other.  Where 
the  epistles  are  fullest  and  most  explicit  in  their  his- 
torical references,  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Acts  seems 
frequently  to  have  had  least  knowledge,  and  in  some  cases 
his  account  is  out  of  accord  with  Paul's  statements.  He 
certainly  did  not  undertake  to  conform  his  narrative  to 
Paul's  epistles  and  to  control  it  by  them,  and  it  can 
hardly  be  supposed  in  the  light  of  his  evident  respect  for 

1  See  also  p.  239,  above. 

2Cf.,  e.g.,  Weizsacker,  I.e.  S.  170  (Eng.  Trans.,  Vol.  I.  p.  209),  Ramsay: 
St.  Paul,  the  Traveller  and  the  Roman  Citizen,  p.  3§5,  and  especially  Jacob- 
sen:  Die  Qnellen  der  Apostelgeschichte. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  437 

his  memory  that  he  would  have  ventured  consciously  to 
correct  the  apostle.  To  ascribe  to  him  the  deliberate 
purpose  of  making  Paul  seem  something  other  than  he 
really  was,  and  of  modifying  the  facts  in  order  to  bring 
him  into  closer  accord  with  the  principles  and  practice 
of  the  older  apostles,  is  to  do  him  an  injustice.  Nothing 
in  the  Gospel  or  in  the  Acts  warrants  us  in  accusing 
him  of  intentional  perversion  of  the  facts.  The  defects 
in  his  narrative,  and  his  divergences  from  the  epistles  of 
Paul,  can  be  fully  and  most  satisfactorily  accounted  for 
by  his  lack  of  information ;  and  the  assumption  of  a  con- 
scious deviation  from  the  facts  in  the  interest  of  a  cause 
cannot  be  made  to  square  with  all  the  phenomena.  It 
must  be  concluded,  then,  that  if  the  author  of  the  Acts 
had  read  any  of  Paul's  epistles,  he  did  not  at  any  rate 
have  them  in  his  hands  at  the  time  he  wrote  his  work, 
and  was  not  so  familiar  with  them  that  they  materially 
affected  his  narrative.  The  epistles  and  the  Acts  do  con- 
firm and  supplement  each  other  in  many  cases,  but  such 
confirmation  is  largely  of  an  indirect  and  evidently  un- 
designed character.  It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  the  author 
of  the  Acts  does  not  once  speak  of  Paul's  correspondence 
with  his  churches,  and  it  is  a  mistake  to  suppose  that 
within  twenty-five  or  thirty  years  after  the  apostle's  death 
his  epistles  were  so  widely  circulated  that  every  intelli- 
gent Christian  of  the  Gentile  world  must  have  been 
familiar  with  them.  The  literature  of  the  early  church 
shows  that  the  acquaintance  with  many  of  his  writings 
was  very  limited  even  as  late  as  the  beginning  of  the 
second  century. 

The  date  and  place  of  the  composition  of  the  "we" 
passages,  and  the  residence  and  personality  of  their 
author,  it  is  impossible  to  determine;  and  much  the  same 
may^be  said  of  the  Book  of  Acts.  The  indications,  how- 
ever, point  to  the  reign  of  Domitian  as  the  time  when  the 
latter  was  composed.  The  date  of  the  third  Gospel  pre- 
vents us  from  putting  it  much  earlier  than  that  reign,1 
and  the  apparent  need  felt  by  the  author  of  defending 

gee  below,  p.  577. 


438  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

Christianity  before  the  Roman  authorities  points  to  a 
time  when  the  Christians  were  beginning  to  experience 
the  disfavor  of  the  state,1  as  we  know  that  they  were  in 
the  time  of  Domitian;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
author's  lack  of  acquaintance  with  many  of  Paul's  epis- 
tles, and  the  indications  of  a  knowledge  of  his  book  on 
the  part  of  Christian  writers  of  the  early  second  century, 
make  it  inadvisable  to  put  it  into  a  later  period. 

That  Paul  had  many  other  companions  and  disciples 
besides  those  mentioned  in  his  epistles  and  in  the  Book 
of  Acts  cannot  be  doubted,  and  it  may  be  that  some  of 
them  were  of  greater  importance  and  exerted  a  far  larger 
influence  than  many  whose  names  we  know.  Except  in 
the  case  of  a  very  few,  the  preservation  of  those  names 
was  largely  due  to  accidental  circumstances.  The  brief 
note  to  the  church  of  Ephesus  introducing  Phoebe  of 
Cenchrese  furnishes  us,  for  instance,  with  some  thirty 
otherwise  entirely  unknown.  But  Paul's  influence  was 
not  measured  by  the  men  who  counted  themselves  his 
disciples  or  who  were  immediate^  associated  with  him 
in  his  work.  His  influence  was  felt  by  multitudes  who 
never  saw  his  face  and  whose  names  he  never  knew.  His 
historic  significance  is  to  be  estimated  not  by  the  number 
of  his  converts  nor  by  their  names,  but  by  the  amazing 
success  with  which  he  carried  out  his  great  plan  of  world- 
wide evangelism  and  still  more  by  the  impulse  which  he 
gave  to  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  in  all  parts  of  the 
empire.  By  his  tireless  activity  he  brought  a  knowledge 
of  the  Gospel  to  many  of  the  most  important  cities  of  the 
world ;  and  not  simply  that,  he  started  Christianity  upon  its 
world-conquering  career,  and,  above  all,  he  made  it  com- 
pletely and  forever  independent  of  Judaism.  His  prin- 
ciples might  not  be  fully  appreciated  and  the  arguments 
upon  which  he  based  his  assertion  of  the  independence  of 
the  Gospel  might  be  generally  misapprehended,  but  the 
fact  for  which  he  stood  could  not  be  mistaken ;  and  though 
he  was  not  the  only  one  that  stood  for  it,  it  was  due  to 
him  more  than  to  any  one  else  that  Jewish  exclusiveness 

1  See  above,  p.  348. 


THE   WORK   OF   PAUL  439 

was  broken  down  and  the  evangelization  of  the  Gentile 
world  made  possible.  He  not  only  won  a  victory  over  the 
Judaizers,  but  he  clinched  his  victory  and  made  it  per- 
manent by  the  active,  eager,  successful  work  which  he 
carried  on  for  years  afterward,  and  by  which  he  demon- 
strated, so  clearly  that  it  could  never  be  questioned,  the 
universality  of  the  Gospel  and  its  permanent  independence 
of  all  racial  and  national  limitations.  Whatever  else  he 
did,  he  at  least  gave  to  his  disciples  and  companions,  and 
through  them  to  multitudes  of  others,  the  impulse  and 
the  courage  to  preach  such  a  Gospel  to  all  the  world. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  CHRISTIANITY   OF   THE   CHURCH  AT  LARGE 

1.   THE  COMMON  CONCEPTION  OF  THE  GOSPEL 

PAUL  was  not  the  founder  of  Christianity;  he  was  only 
its  greatest  missionary.  The  Gentile  church,  the  church 
of  the  world  at  large,  owed  its  existence  and  its  rapid 
spread  very  largely  to  him,  but  it  was  by  no  means  a 
Pauline  church;  it  was  a  Christian  church,  and  there  was 
room  in  it,  as  the  event  proved,  for  many  other  concep- 
tions of  the  Gospel  than  that  which  Paul  himself  preached. 
His  name  outside  of  Ebionitic  circles  was  always  held  in 
high  honor,  but  the  Christianity  of  the  world-church  of 
the  second  and  subsequent  centuries  had  little  likeness  to 
the  Christianity  of  the  epistles  to  the  Galatians,  Corin- 
thians, and  Romans.  This  does  not  mean  that  the  teachings 
of  Paul  were  entirely  neglected  or  misunderstood.  Some 
of  those  teachings  are  reproduced  in  many  post-Pauline 
writings.  But  even  where  they  are  thus  found,  they 
appear  in  nearly  every  case  in  proportions  and  in  rela- 
tions different  from  those  in  which  they  were  originally 
uttered,  and  combined  with  other  ideas  entirely  foreign 
to  Paul's  thought.  Now  one  element,  now  another  of 
his  teaching  is  seized  upon  by  this  or  that  Christian,  and 
given  a  prominent  or  even  a  controlling  place  in  his  sys- 
tem, but  Paul's  total  conception  of  Christianity  is  lost. 
Almost  no  one  looks  upon  the  Gospel  as  he  does,  and  repro- 
duces his  interpretation  of  it  in  its  original  proportions. 

This  remarkable  lack  of  a  true  and  genuine  Paulinism 
in  the  writings  of  the  early  Christians  was  due  in  part 
to  the  fact  that  Paul's  teachings,  which  were  so  largely 
the  fruit  of  his  own  experience,  were  too  profound  to  be 
understood  or  appreciated  by  the  mass  of  his  converts, 

440 


THE   CHRISTIANITY   OF   THE   CHURCH   AT   LARGE      441 

who  possessed  no  such  religious  nature  as  he  was  gifted 
with,  and  who  had  passed  through  no  such  spiritual  crisis 
as  had  preceded  his  conversion  to  the  Christian  faith.1 
But  it  was  due  still  more  largely  to  the  fact  that  Paul 
was  not  the  only  missionary  of  Christ,  and  that  multi- 
tudes of  Gentile  Christians  received  the  Gospel  from 
other  lips  than  his.  This  was  true  of  the  Christians  of 
Alexandria,  a  city  which  he  never  visited,  and  of  Rome, 
where  he  spent  the  closing  years  of  his  life.  It  was  true 
also  of  many  provinces  lying  both  east  and  west  of  his 
missionary  field,  and  of  many  communities  even  within 
the  territory  which  he  covered.  Thus  Pontus  and  Bithynia 
on  the  east,  Gaul,  Spain,  and  North  Africa  on  the  west, 
were  never  visited  by  him,  and  even  in  the  province  of 
Asia,  where  he  labored  for  so  long,  Colossae,  Laodicea, 
and  Hierapolis  had  not  seen  his  face.  If  even  those  who 
owed  their  conversion  directly  to  him  were  commonly 
unable  to  apprehend  the  full  nature  and  significance  of 
his  Gospel,  much  less  was  it  to  be  expected  that  those 
who  knew  him  only  by  reputation,  or  those  who  heard 
him  only  after  their  own  conceptions  of  Christianity  were 
already  formed  and  crystallized,  should  understand  and 
make  his  Gospel  their  own.  And  still  less  was  it  to  be 
expected,  when  the  Gospel  which  they  received  from 
others  was  commonly  far  more  in  line  with  their  own 
previous  thought  and  experience,  and  thus  far  easier  of 
comprehension  and  acceptance. 

This  Gospel,  which  was  brought  to  the  Gentile  world 
by  other  missionaries  than  Paul,  it  is  impossible  to  recon- 

1  Most  of  them  knew  nothing  of  that  discipline  of  the  conscience  which  Paul 
had  undergone  in  his  effort  to  conform  his  life  in  all  respects  to  the  require- 
ments of  an  exacting  and  minute  code  of  religion  and  ethics;  for  nearly 
all  of  them  were  Gentiles  or  Hellenists,  who  either  knew  nothing  about  the 
Jewish  law,  or  regarded  it  simply  as  a  general  expression  of  the  proper  atti- 
tude of  devotion  towards  the  supreme  God,  and  observed  it  at  most  only  in  its 
larger  lines.  It  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  such  men  failed  to  make  Paul's 
conception  of  Christianity  their  own.  It  is  a  great  mistake  to  identify  Paulin- 
ism  with  primitive  Gentile  Christianity,  and  to  place  him  and  the  early  Gen- 
tile Christians  over  against  Jewish  Christians,  as  representatives  of  a  distinct 
and  independent  development.  Paul  was  a  Jew,  and  his  conception  of  the 
Gospel  rests  upon  Jewish  presuppositions  which  distinguish  it  sharply  from 
various  other  conceptions  that  made  their  appearance  in  the  Gentile  world. 


442  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

struct  in  all  its  details ;  for  the  sources  upon  which  we 
have  to  depend  for  our  knowledge  of  it  are  very  limited. 
But  the  main  features  of  it,  which  must  have  been  much 
the  same  even  when  it  was  preached  by  Christians  who 
held  widely  different  views  on  many  points,  can  be  repro- 
duced with  some  degree  of  confidence. 

Upon  one  point  all  of  them  were  in  agreement,  both 
with  each  other  and  with  Paul.  All  believed  that  the 
Gentile  Christian  is  free  from  the  obligation  to  observe 
the  Jewish  law.  Moreover,  the  men  that  carried  the 
Gospel  to  the  heathen  world  were  commonly  agreed  that 
the  Jewish  Christian,  as  well  as  his  Gentile  brother,  is 
free  from  such  obligation.  This  principle,  to  be  sure, 
was  longer  than  the  other  in  finding  general  recognition. 
In  Jerusalem,  long  after  the  freedom  of  Gentile  Chris- 
tians had  been  admitted,  the  disciples  of  Jewish  birth 
continued  to  observe  their  ancestral  law  in  all  its  strict- 
ness, and  to  insist  upon  the  duty  of  all  their  Christian 
compatriots  to  do  the  same.1  And  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  there  were  at  that  time  many  outside  of  Palestine 
who  followed  the  same  course.  But  there  were  many, 
too,  and  probably  far  more,  in  the  church  at  large,  who 
believed  in  the  abrogation  of  the  national  code  for  Jewish 
as  well  as  Gentile  disciples.  As  was  seen  in  an  earlier 
chapter,  there  were  those,  even  before  Paul  entered  upon 
his  great  missionary  career,  who  held  this  opinion  and 
acted  upon  it  in  Antioch  and  elsewhere  quite  inde- 
pendently of  him.  And  as  time  passed,  and  Christianity 
spread  ever  more  widely  in  the  Roman  world,  and  the 
Gentile  disciples  grew  more  numerous  and  influential, 
the  number  of  such  Jewish  liberals  must  have  increased 
with  great  rapidity.  It  was  inevitable,  indeed,  that  those 
who  still  clung  to  the  old  forms,  and  refused  to  meet  their 
Gentile  brethren  on  equal  terms,  should  find  themselves 
in  an  ever  more  hopeless  minorit}T,  and  that  the  church 
at  large  should  go  its  way  without  seriously  concerning  it- 
self about  them.  It  is  a  mistake  to  think  that  the  ques- 
tion remained  a  burning  one  for  any  length  of  time.  All 

1  Acts  xxi.  20. 


THE   CHRISTIANITY   OF   THE'  CHURCH   AT   LARGE      443 

the  writings  of  the  first  century  bear  witness  to  the  con- 
trary. It  will  not  do  to  explain  the  lack  of  references 
to  the  controversy  touching  the  law  in  the  non-Pauline 
literature  of  that  century  by  assuming  a  desire  on  the 
part  of  the  writers  to  rise  above  the  differences  that  had 
agitated  the  church,  and  to  construct  a  platform  upon 
which  both  parties  could  stand.  Such  an  assumption  is 
entirely  groundless.  The  truth  is  that  there  was  no 
dispute  at  the  time  that  literature  was  written,  and  the 
controversy  had  never  been  so  widespread  as  to  impress 
its  memory  upon  the  church  at  large.  That  Christians, 
both  Jewish  and  Gentile,  were  entirely  free  from  the  ob- 
ligation to  observe  the  law  of  Moses,  simply  went  with- 
out saying  in  most  parts  of  Christendom,  even  before  the 
time  of  Paul's  death,  and  there  was  no  reason  whatever 
for  a  Christian  writer  to  spend  either  time  or  thought 
upon  a  question  that  concerned  neither  himself  nor  his 
brethren. 

But  though  complete  freedom  from  Jewish  ceremonial 
was  thus  widely  taken  for  granted,  Paul's  principle  that 
the  Christian  is  released  from  all  external  law  was  not 
generally  accepted.  The  Gospel  was  understood  by  the 
original  disciples  in  Jerusalem  as  a  Gospel  of  righteous- 
ness, and  righteousness  meant  to  them,  as  to  the  Jews  in 
general,  the  strict  observance  of  the  revealed  law  of  God. 
When  it  came  to  be  believed  that  the  national  code  of  the 
Jews  was  no  longer  binding,  the  result  was  the  belief  not 
that  the  Christian  is  subject  to  no  objective  law,  but  that 
he  is  subject  to  a  new  and  higher  one. 

It  is  significant  that  the  Christians  in  general,  who 
agreed  with  Paul  as  to  the  abrogation  of  the  Jewish  law, 
reached  their  position,  whether  under  Paul's  influence  or 
independently  of  him,  by  an  entirely  different  route  from 
that  which  he  pursued.  His  conviction  rested  upon  a 
principle  which  was  fundamental  in  his  thinking, — the 
principle  that  the  Christian  life  is  a  life  of  freedom  from 
the  flesh;  and  his  conviction  involved,  therefore,  the 
Christian's  release  from  subjection  to  law  in  general  and 
not  simply  to  the  Jewish  law.  But  among  other  mis- 


444  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

sionaries  to  the  Gentiles  there  were  many  who  were  led 
to  the  same  conclusion  touching  the  Jewish  law  by  mere 
force  of  circumstance  or  example,  and  probably  still  more 
who  had  already  before  their  conversion  ceased  to  lay  any 
great  stress  upon  the  observance  of  ceremonial  rites,  and 
contented  themselves  with  conforming  their  lives  to  the 
general  principles  of  good  morals.  Among  the  Hellenistic 
Jews  of  the  period  there  were  many  such.  In  their  hands 
Judaism  had  become  transformed  in  many  quarters  into 
a  universal  religion,  whose  sum  was  the  belief  in  one 
supreme,  spiritual  God,  and  in  a  final  judgment,  when 
men  were  to  be  rewarded  or  punished  for  their  observance 
or  non-observance  of  the  general  moral  law.  They  dif- 
fered from  many  of  the  better  and  more  thoughtful  spirits 
in  the  heathen  world  about  them  only  in  their  belief  in 
revelation.  In  the  Jewish  Scriptures,  interpreted  largely 
in  an  allegorical  manner,  they  were  convinced  that  they 
had  an  authentic  revelation  of  the  character  and  will  of 
the  true  God  and  of  his  future  purposes  for  men.  It  was 
in  large  part  due  to  the  efforts  of  such  Hellenists  as  these 
that  Jewish  propagandism  was  so  amazingly  successful  in 
the  first  and  second  centuries  of  our  era,  and  among  them 
doubtless  Christianity  won  multitudes  of  adherents.  But 
of  course  to  such  men  as  these  Christianity  could  not 
mean  the  observance  of  the  Jewish  ceremonial  law.  Their 
Christian  faith  and  life  must  be  conditioned  by  their 
previous  convictions;  and  that  meant  not  simply  that 
the  Christianity  which  they  professed,  and  which  they 
preached  to  their  Gentile  neighbors,  must  be  superior  to 
Jewish  exclusiveness,  whether  national  or  religious,  but 
also  that  it  must  be  marked  by  the  features  which  they 
regarded  as  essential  in  the  older  faith.  It  must  be  the 
supreme  and  final  revelation  of  the  true  God,  who  had 
already  revealed  himself  through  Moses  and  the  prophets, 
and  it  must  contain  a  still  clearer  and  more  emphatic 
expression  of  his  will  and  of  the  consequences  to  follow 
its  observance  or  non-observance.  It  was  thus  inevitable 
that  the  Christianity  of  the  world  at  large,  so  far  as  it  felt 
the  influence  of  these  men,  should  bear  a  legal  character, 


THE  CHRISTIANITY   OF  THE   CHURCH   AT   LARGE      445 

and  should  be  in  this  respect  widely  removed  from  that 
of  Paul.  But  there  was  no  perversion  in  all  this  of  the 
principles  of  the  original  disciples.  To  them,  too,  Chris- 
tianity bore  a  strictly  legal  character,  just  as  Judaism  had 
done.  The  only  difference  lay  in  their  conception  of  the 
content  of  the  law  which  it  was  the  duty  of  Christ's  fol- 
lowers to  observe.  This  being  the  case,  the  Christianity 
accepted  and  preached  by  these  liberal  Hellenistic  Jews 
must  agree  in  principle  with  the  Christianity  of  other 
missionaries  to  the  Gentiles,  who  were  in  more  immediate 
connection  with  the  Mother  Church.  Whether  or  not  the 
latter  continued  to  think  that  the  observance  of  the  Jew- 
ish ceremonial  law  was  necessary  to  any  one's  salvation, 
they  were  at  any  rate  at  one  in  their  belief  that  to  be  a 
Christian  meant  to  keep  the  commandments  of  God,  what- 
ever they  might  be. 

And  so,  besides  that  form  of  Christianity  which  Paul 
preached,  sometimes  before  and  sometimes  after  it,  there 
went  to  the  Gentile  world  another  form,  preached  by 
multitudes  of  missionaries,  both  Palestinian  and  Hellen- 
istic, —  missionaries  who  were  doubtless  for  the  most  part 
entirely  friendly  to  Paul,  so  far  as  they  knew  anything 
about  him,  and  who  believed  themselves  to  be  carrying 
on  the  same  work  that  he  was  doing.  They  were  in  gen- 
eral agreement  with  each  other  and  with  him,  at  an  early 
day  if  riot  from  the  beginning,  in  the  belief  that  the 
ceremonial  law  is  no  longer  binding  upon  the  Christian, 
and  they  inculcated  the  same  kind  of  living  that  he  did: 
faith  in  God  and  devotion  to  him,  honesty,  sobriety, 
purity,  temperance,  patience  under  afflictions,  joy,  peace, 
long-suffering,  hospitality,  love  for  the  brethren.  It  is 
not  to  be  wondered  at  that  they,  and  those  to  whom  they 
preached,  should  be  generally  unconscious  that  there  was 
any  disagreement  between  them  and  him.  They  were 
proclaiming  the  same  Christ,  and  they  seemed  to  be 
preaching  the  same  Gospel.  And  indeed  Paul  himself 
recognized  them  as  fellow-disciples,  and  never  denied 
that  their  message,  different  as  it  was  from  his  in  its 
interpretation  of  the  work  of  Christ  and  of  the  nature  and 


446  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

basis  of  the  Christian  life,  was  a  Christian  message  fitted 
to  lead  men  to  the  Master.1  It  is  only  as  we  recognize 
this  oneness  of  purpose  which  actuated  Paul  and  the 
many  other  missionaries  of  the  day,  and  their  conscious- 
ness of  being  engaged  in  the  promotion  of  a  common 
cause  which  bound  them  all  together,  that  we  can  under- 
stand the  subsequent  development,  in  which  the  peculiar 
views  of  Paul  were  so  largely  crowded  out,  while  his 
name  continued  -to  be  held  in  the  highest  honor  and  all 
believed  themselves  true  to  his  memory. 

The  common  legal  conception  of  Christianity  which  has 
been  referred  to  is  found  in  nearly  all  the  non-Pauline 
writings  of  the.  first  and  second  centuries,  whether  of 
Jewish  or  of  Gentile  origin.  In  the  Epistle  of  James,  in 
the  Apocalypse,  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  in  the 
pastoral  epistles,  in  Jude  and  Second  Peter,  in  Clement's 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  in  Barnabas,  in  the  Didaehe, 
in  II.  Clement,  in  Polycarp,  in  Justin  Martyr,  the  same 
general  idea  appears,  in  spite  of  the  large  variety  in  the 
subject-matter  and  the  wide  diversity  of  view  at  many 
points. 

The  Epistle  of  James,  which  bears  in  reality  more  the 
character  of  a  homily  than  of  an  epistle,  is  very  signifi- 
cant in  this  connection.  It  was  addressed  by  a  Christian 
of  Jewish  birth,  possibly  primarily  to  Christians  of  the 
same  race,2  more  probably  to  Christian  brethren  in  general 
without  regard  to  race.3  In  either  case  the  author's  atti- 
tude toward  the  ceremonial  law  of  the  Jews  was  that  of  a 
member  of  the  world-church.  There  is  no  trace  of  the 
idea  that  that  law  was  still  binding  upon  any  Christian, 
and  no  hint  that  it  was  still  observed  by  either  writer 
or  readers.  And  yet  Christianity  is  conceived  distinctly 
under  the  aspect  of  a  law.4  It  is  called  a  law  of  liberty,6 
to  be  sure,  but  that  does  not  destroy  its  legal  character. 
It  simply  means  that  the  observance  of  it,  which  involves 


1  Cf.  Phil.  i.  15  sq.  2  Cf.  Jas.  i.  1,  ii.  2. 

8  Upon  the  date  and  authorship  of  the  epistle  and  the  character  of  its 
readers,  see  below,  p.  580  sq. 

4  Cf.  Jas.  i.  25,  ii.  8,  12.  6  Jas.  i.  25,  ii.  8. 


THE  CHRISTIANITY  OF   THE)  CHURCH   AT   LARGE      44? 

love  and  mercy  for  one's  neighbor,  will  secure  a  merciful 
judgment  from  God,1  and  that  a  man,  therefore,  whose 
heart  is  right  toward  those  about  him,  need  not  fear  God's 
vengeance,  as  he  must  if  he  were  to  be  judged  only  by  the 
letter  of  an  external  code.  There  is  evidently  a  great 
advance  here  upon  the  common  pharisaic  notion  of  the 
law.  In  fact,  the  principle  enunciated  by  James  resembles 
closely  the  principle  of  Christ,  who  came  not  to  destroy 
the  law,  but  to  fulfil  it  by  revealing  and  emphasizing  its 
inner  meaning.  And  yet  it  is  not  the  principle  of  Paul ; 
for  to  him  the  Christian  life  is  not  obedience  to  any  ob- 
jective law,  even  the  law  of  love,  but  the  working  out  in 
the  man  of  the  life  of  Christ  within  him.  The  resultant 
character  and  conduct  may  be  the  same  in  both  cases,  but 
the  process  and  the  principle  are  different.  Moreover, 
the  contrast  between  Paul  and  James  is  greater  than 
between  Paul  and  Jesus;  for  though  Jesus  pictures  the 
Christian  life  as  the  observance  of  the  law  of  love,  he 
views  that  law  always  as  the  expression  of  a  Father's 
will,  and  he  accordingly  emphasizes  love  for  God  as  well 
as  love  for  men.  At  this  point  there  is  a  close  resem- 
blance between  Paul's  teaching  and  the  Master's ;  for  Paul 
sees  in  love  an  expression  of  the  divine  character,  whether 
in  God  himself  or  in  man,  and  can  thus  say  that  love  is 
the  fulfilling  of  the  law.2  But  in  James  there  is  no  such 
conception  of  the  fatherhood  of  God,  and  of  the  Chris- 
tian's love  for  him.3  "Pure  religion  and  undefiled"  is 
defined  by  him  as  "  visiting  the  fatherless  and  widows  in 
their  affliction,"  and  keeping  oneself  "unspotted  from  the 
world."4  And  so  it  is  not  the  Christian's  filial  relation 
to  God,  as  in  Jesus'  teaching,  nor  the  presence  of  Christ 
himself  in  the  believer,  making  him  a  son  of  God,  as 

iJas.  ii.  13.  2Rom.  xiji.  10. 

8  There  is  no  reference  to  love  for  God  (except  in  a  traditional  phrase  in  i.  12 
and  ii.  5) ,  and  the  word  "  Father  "  is  used  of  God  ouly  three  times  ;  once  in  the 
phrase  "  Father  of  lights  "  (i.  17) ;  again  in  the  phrase  "  the  God  and  Father  " 
(r£  6e$  Kal  irarpl,  i.  27),  where  the  Revised  Version  wrongly  inserts  the  word 
"our  "  ;  and  finally  in  the  phrase  "the  Lord  and  Father"  (rbv  Kvpiov  Kal  irartpa, 
iii.  9).  In  each  case  it  is  evident  that  the  word  is  used  in  a  merely  traditional 
sense,  with  no  deeper  meaning  than  it  had  to  Jews. 

4  Jas.  i.  27. 


448  THE   APOSTOLIC    AGE 

in  Paul's  teaching,  that  insures  his  salvation,  but  the 
observance  of  God's  law.1 

The  conception  of  Christianity  as  a  law,  which  is  so 
clearly  voiced  by  James,  is  very  prominent  also  in  the 
Apocalypse,  though  there  it  is  obedience  to  the  com- 
mands of  God  in  general  which  is  emphasized,  and  the 
summary  of  the  law  which  James  gives,  and  his  charac- 
terization of  it  as  a  law  of  liberty,  do  not  appear.2  The 
same  may  be  said  also  of  the  pastoral  epistles,3  and  even 
more  emphatically  of  2  Peter.4  So  even  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  which  reveals  the  influence  of  Paul  in  many 
ways,  the  Christian  life  is  represented  as  a  life  of  obedi- 
ence, or  of  endurance  in  the  service  of  God  unto  the 
end.5 

That  this  conception  of  Christianity  as  a  law,  which 
finds  clear  expression  in  so  many  of  the  writings  of  the 
period,  and  which  was  doubtless  shared  by  the  great 
majority  of  the  early  missionaries,  should  meet  with  a 
cordial  response,  and  should  secure  a  much  wider  accept- 
ance in  the  Gentile  world  than  the  peculiar  doctrines  of 
Paul,  was  but  natural.  For  Paul's  views  there  was  little 
preparation  in  the  world  at  large.  Few,  in  fact,  were  in 
a  position  either  to  understand  or  appreciate  them.  But 
the  views  of  James  and  others  like  him  were  calculated 
to  appeal  strongly  to  the  better  and  more  earnest  spirits 
everywhere.  The  period  with  which  we  are  dealing  was 

1  Jas.  i.  21  sq.,  25,  ii.  8  sq.,  14  sq.,  iv.  11.    Though  James  sums  up  the  content 
of  this  law  as  love  for  one's  neighbor,  he  also  speaks  of  the  Christian's  duty  to 
have  faith  when  he  prays  (i.  6  sq.),  to  subject  himself  to  God  (iv.  7),  to  draw 
near  unto  him  (iv.  8) ,  to  humble  himself  before  him  (iv.  10) ,  to  submit  to  his 
will  (iv.  15),  and  on  the  other  hand  to  keep  himself  unspotted  from  the  world 
(i.  27).    He  thus  implies  that  the  law  involves  more  than  one's  duties  to  one's 
neighbor. 

2  Compare  the  letters  to  the  seven  churches  in  Rev.  ii.  and  iii. ;  also  xii.  17. 
xiv.  12,  xix.  8,  xx.  12  sq.,  xxi.  7,  xxii.  12. 

a  Cf .  1  Tim.  ii.  15,  iv.  8,  vi.  18  sq. 

4  Cf.  2  Peter  i.  10,  ii.  9  sq.,  20,  iii.  11,  14,  17. 

6  Heb.  iii.  18,  iv.  11,  v.  9,  vi.  10,  ix.  14,  x.  36,  xii.  28 ;  and  iii.  6,  14,  vi.  6, 12, 
x.  23  sq.,  xii.  1.  The  conception  of  Christianity  as  a  law  is  found  also  in 
nearly  all  the  patristic  writings  of  the  period.  Cf.,  e.g.,  I.  Clem.  1,  2,  7,  9, 
10;  Barnabas  2,  21;  Polycarp  2;  II.  Clem.  8,  11;  Hermas:  Sim.  VI.  1,  VIII. 
3,  7 ;  Mand.  IV.  2,  etc.  And  it  is  in  accordance  with  this  conception  that 
Christ's  Gospel  of  the  Fatherhood  of  God  is  almost  entirely  lacking  in  the 
extaut  literature  of  the  early  church. 


THE   CHRISTIANITY   OF   THE   CHURCH    AT    LARGE      449 

marked  by  a  widespread  impulse  toward  moral  reforma- 
tion. However  low  the  average  moral  condition  of  the 
Roman  world  in  the  closing  years  of  the  Republic,  it  is 
certain  that  during  the  first  and  second  centuries  of  our 
era,  a  mighty  ethical  movement  was  in  progress  quite  in- 
dependently of  the  Christian  church,  and  that  its  effects 
were  widely  felt  among  all  classes  of  people.  There  was 
"a  growing  reaction  in  the  popular  mind  against  the 
vices  of  the  great  centres  of  population,"1  and  an  ever- 
increasing  emphasis  upon  the  importance  of  pure  and 
upright  living. 

But  of  most  significance  to  us  is  the  fact  that  this 
movement  meant  the  growing  recognition  of  moral  law 
and  the  growing  sense  of  the  necessity  of  conforming 
one's  life  to  its  dictates.  The  movement  found  its  philo- 
sophical expression  and  justification  chiefly  in  Stoicism, 
which  underwent  a  remarkable  revival  during  the  first 
and  second  centuries.  It  is  perhaps  worth  while  to  quote 
a  few  characteristic  sentences  from  the  greatest  represen- 
tative of  the  tendency  of  which  I  am  speaking,  —  the  moral 
philosopher  and  teacher  Epictetus.  "In  all  cases,"  he 
says,  "progress  is  the  approaching  to  that  to  which  per- 
fection finally  brings  us."  "Where  is  progress  then?" 
he  continues.  "If  any  of  you,  withdrawing  himself  from 
externals,  turns  to  his  own  will,  to  train  and  perfect  and 
render  it  conformable  to  nature :  noble,  free,  unrestrained, 
unhindered,  faithful,  humble ;  if  rising  in  the  morning  he 
observes  and  keeps  to  these  rules:  bathes  regularly,  eats 
frugally,  and  to  every  subject  faithfully  applies  the  same 
fixed  principles, —  if  a  racer  to  racing,  if  an  orator  to 
oratory, —  this  is  he  who  truly  makes  progress."  It  is 
the  law  of  nature  which  Epictetus  here  insists  upon  as 
the  law  of  human  conduct.  The  duty  of  every  man  is  to 
strive  to  bring  his  will  into  harmony  with  nature.  But 
Epictetus  goes  further  than  this.  He  finds  the  law  for 
the  government  of  human  life  not  in  nature  alone,  but  in 
God.  It  is  not  simply  that  man  must  conform  his  con- 

1  Hatch :  Influence  of  Greek  Ideas  and  Usages  upon  the  Christian  Church, 
p.  141.  Upon  this  whole  subject  see  that  notable  work. 


450  THE   APOSTOLIC    AGE 

duct  to  the  law  of  nature ;  he  must  conform  it  to  the  law 
of  God.  "  We  must  learn  what  the  gods  are,  for  such  as 
they  are  found  to  be,  such  must  he  seek  to  be  to  the 
utmost  of  his  power  who  would  please  and  obey  them. 
If  the  deity  is  faithful,  he  too  must  be  faithful;  if  free, 
beneficent,  and  noble,  he  must  be  free,  beneficent,  and 
noble  likewise,  in  all  his  words  and  actions  behaving  as 
an  imitator  of  God."  "Our  duty  is  to  follow  God; "  "to 
be  of  one  mind  with  him;"  "to  acquiesce  in  his  adminis- 
tration ; "  "  to  devote  ourselves  to  the  performance  of  his 
commands.  If  we  will  not  do  it,  we  suffer  loss.  There 
are  penalties  imposed,  not  by  a  vindictive  tyrant,  but  by 
a  self-acting  law."  "Lastly,  for  all  other  pleasures  sub- 
stitute the  consciousness  that  you  are  obeying  God  and 
performing  not  in  word  but  in  deed  the  duty  of  a  wise 
and  good  man."1 

Thus  does  Epictetus  give  expression  to  his  conception 
of  man's  duty,  and  thus  it  is  upon  duty  that  he  lays  chief 
emphasis.  And  in  this  he  was  at  one  with  the  best  senti- 
ment of  his  day.  Conformity  to  law,  whether  the  law  of 
nature  or  the  law  of  God,  was  the  ethical  watchword  of 
the  age.2  And  so  the  Gentile  world  was  in  a  position 
to  appreciate  the  conception  of  Christianity  as  a  divine 
law,  which  was  taught,  not  by  Paul,  but  by  his  fellow- 
missionaries.  Thus,  indeed,  must  most  of  them  regard 
Christianity  if  they  accepted  it  at  all.  It  is  certainly  not 
surprising  that  they  did  not  make  their  own  Paul's  view 
of  the  Christian  life  as  a  release  from  law;  it  is  not  sur- 
prising that  they  saw  in  such  a  view  only  an  encourage- 
ment to  libertinism  and  immorality,  and  that  they  refused 
to  believe  that  Paul,  whom  they  so  highly  esteemed, 
taught  any  such  thing.  He  was  read  by  the  early  Chris- 
tians in  the  light  of  their  own  ideas,  and  though  they  all 
recognized  his  refusal  to  admit  the  binding  authority  of 
the  ceremonial  law  of  the  Jews,  they  considered  him  as 
truly  a  teacher  of  Christian  law  as  any  of  his  fellows. 

1  The  passages  are  taken  from  various  parts  of  the  Discourses  of  Epictetus 
(Hiicuiuson's  Trails.).  Cf.  also  Hatch,  I.e.  pp.  144,  155. 

-  ('  mipare  the  words  of  Seneca:  "  We  should  not  only  submit  to  God,  but 
assent  to  him,  and  obey  him  out  of  duty,  even  if  there  be  no  necessity." 


THE   CHRISTIANITY   OF   THE   CHURCH   AT   LARGE      451 

Had  he  not  been  thus  interpreted,  he  must  have  been 
repudiated  by  the  church  at  large,  as  he  was  by  the 
Judaizers  and  by  their  successors,  the  Ebionites.  That 
Christianity,  then,  secured  converts  in  the  Roman  world 
of  the  first  and  second  centuries,  was  largely  due  not  to 
the  fact  that  it  was  what  Paul  conceived  it  to  be,  but  to 
the  fact  that  it  was  regarded  as  the  promulgation  of  a  law 
for  the  government  of  human  life,  —  a  law  resting,  as  it 
was  claimed,  upon  the  clearest  divine  sanctions. 

But  Christianity,  as  understood  by  its  early  mission- 
aries, was  something  more  than  a  law;  it  was  a  promise 
as  well.  They  were  conscious  of  proclaiming  to  the 
world  above  all  else  a  Gospel,  —  the  Gospel  of  eternal  life. 
The  law  was  not  an  end  unto  itself.  It  was  simply  a 
means  to  the  attainment  of  salvation,  and  it  was  as  a 
message  of  salvation  that  Christianity  was  preached  to 
the  world  at  large.  But  it  was  in  accordance  with  their 
conception  of  Christianity  as  a  law,  that  the  disciples  of 
whom  Ave  have  been  speaking  conceived  of  salvation 
solely  as  a  future  thing,  as  the  condition  of  blessedness 
into  which,  after  the  coming  of  Christ,  those  shall  enter 
who  have  kept  the  law  unto  the  end.1  The  eschatological 
element  was  all-controlling  in  the  church  at  large  of  the 
first  and  second  centuries,  just  as  in  the  church  of 
Jerusalem  in  the  days  immediately  preceding  Christ's 
departure.  The  disciples  in  all  parts  of  the  world  lived 
in  the  future  as  truly  as  their  brethren  of  Jerusalem,  and 
it  was  their  hope  of  a  salvation  soon  to  be  revealed  that 
sustained  them  in  all  their  troubles,  nerved  them  in  all 
their  conflicts,  and  inspired  them  to  endure  in  faith  and 
virtue  even  to  the  end.  They  looked  for  the  blessings 
of  salvation  not  to  the  present,  with  its  emptiness  and 
vanity  and  evil,  but  to  the  future.  In  that  future  they 
lived,  and  its  glory  and  splendor  were  vivid  to  their 
gaze.  The  enthusiasm  thus  kindled  permeated  all  their 
thought  and  life,  and  the  evidences  of  it  that  still  remain 

i  Cf.  Jas.  i.  12,  ii.  5,  v.  7  sq. ;  Heb.  i.  14,  vi.  19,  ix.  28,  x.  34  sq.,  xii.  28,  xiii. 
14;  1  Tim.  vi.  19;  2  Pet.  i.  11,  Hi.  4,8  sq.;  Rev.  ii.  7,  10,26  et passim;  I.  Clem. 
28,  34,  35,  50;  Polycarp  5 ;  Barnabas  4 ;  Didache  16 ;  II.  Clem.  5, 16  sq. ;  Hermas : 
Vis.  III.  8  et  passim. 


452  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE 

constitute  one  of  the  most  marked  and  striking  features 
of  the  literature  of  the  period. 

So  far  as  concerns  the  nature  of  that  future  salvation 
to  which  all  were  looking  forward,  it  was  assumed,  as  a 
matter  of  course,  that  it  meant  eternal  life  and  everlast- 
ing felicity  in  the  presence  of  God  and  in  company  with 
Christ  and  with  his  saints.  But  there  were  many  who 
believed  that  it  was  to  include  also  the  enjoyment  of 
the  blessings  of  a  visible  and  material  kingdom  to  be 
established  upon  earth  at  Christ's  second  coming.  This 
sensuous  conception  of  the  future  was  widespread  in  the 
early  church.  We  find  it  in  the  Apocalypses  of  John  and 
of  Peter,  in  Barnabas,  II.  Clement,  Hernias,  and  Papias, 
and  possibly  also  in  the  Didache^  and  the  importance 
that  was  widely  attached  to  it  is  clearly  shown  by  Justin 
Martyr,  who,  though  he  admits  that  some  Christians  do 
not  accept  it,  regards  it  himself  as  a  foundation-stone 
of  the  Christian  faith.2  The  belief  was  Jewish  in  its 
origin,  and  though  of  course  the  national  hopes  of  the 
Hebrews  played  no  part  in  the  anticipations  of  the  church 
at  large,  the  belief  retained  for  a  long  time  many  of  the 
details  of  the  older  Jewish  conception,  which  are  found  in 
such  writings  as  the  Book  of  Enoch  and  the  Apocalypses 
of  Ezra  and  Baruch. 

Connected  with  the  idea  of  an  earthly  kingdom  of  Christ 
is  the  belief  in  a  resurrection  of  the  body,  which,  at  least 
in  the  case  of  believers,  is  a  necessary  corollary  of  that 
idea.  The  expectation  of  a  resurrection,  at  least  of  pious 

1  Upon  this  conception  of  salvation,  see  Harnack :  Dogmengeschichte,  3te 
Auflage,  I.  S.  158  sq.  (Eng.  Trans.,  Vol.  I.  p.  167  sq.).    While  sensuous  views  of 
the  future  were  very  widespread  in  the  early  church,  chiliasm,  specifically  so 
called,  —  that  is,  the  belief  that  Christ  upon  his  return  will  set  up  a  kingdom 
on  earth,  to  be  shared  in  by  his  saints,  and  to  endure  only  for  a  definite  period, 
until  the  general  resurrection  and  the  Day  of  Judgment,  —  was  not  quite  so 
general  as  Harnack's  note  upon  the  subject  would  seem  to  indicate.    By  some 
of  the  writers  to  whom  he  refers  only  a  future  kingdom  is  mentioned,  and 
nothing  is  said  about  its  limited  duration  and  the  general  resurrection  and 
judgment  to  follow.     The  genuine  chiliastic  view  does  appear,  however,  in 
many  of  the  documents  of  the  period,  as,  for  instance,  in  the  Apocalypses  of 
John  and  Peter,  in  Papias  (Eusebius:  H.  E.  III.  39, 12),  in  Justin  Martyr  (Dial. 
c.  80  sq.),  in  Irenams  (Adv.  User.  V.  33  sq.),  and  apparently  also  in  Barnabas 
15,  and  possibly  in  the  Didache  16. 

2  Cf.,  e.g.,  Dialogue  with  Trypho,  80. 


THE  CHRISTIANITY   OF  THE   CHURCH   AT   LARGE      453 

Israelites,  who  were  expected  to  rise  in  order  to  share  in 
the  blessings  of  the  Messianic  kingdom,  was  widespread 
among  the  Jews  at  the  opening  of  the  Christian  era.  The 
idea  was  foreign  to  the  Greek  mind,  though  the  belief  in 
immortality  had  secured  acceptance  in  the  Greek  and 
Roman  world  of  the  period.  In  the  beginning,  when 
Christians  expected  the  speedy  return  of  Christ  to  set  up 
his  kingdom,  the  thought  of  a  resurrection  of  Christian 
believers  can  hardly  have  suggested  itself.  But  in  time, 
as  the  consummation  was  postponed,  and  death  carried 
away  an  ever-growing  number  of  disciples,  a  difficulty 
arose.  Were  the  brethren  that  died  before  the  return  of 
Christ  to  be  excluded  from  the  enjoyment  of  the  blessings 
of  his  kingdom?  A  Jewish  Christian  would  find  the 
answer  ready  to  hand  in  the  common  belief  of  his  coun- 
trymen touching  a  resurrection.  But  the  traditions  of 
the  world  in  which  he  lived  offered  no  such  relief  to  a 
Gentile  Christian,  and  it  is  very  likely  that  the  question 
caused  wide  perplexity.  It  is  evident,  at  any  rate,  that 
the  Thessalonians  were  troubled  by  it:  for  Paul,  in  his 
first  epistle  to  them,  found  it  necessary  to  exhort  them 
not  to  sorrow  concerning  those  that  had  fallen  asleep,  for 
the  dead  in  Christ  were  to  rise  at  his  coming  and  share 
with  the  living  in  the  blessings  which  he  was  to  bring.1 
At  a  very  early  day,  perhaps  under  the  impulse  of  the 
same  difficulty  which  presented  itself  to  the  Thessalo- 
nians, the  expectation  of  a  resurrection  of  the  body  had 
become  almost  universal  among  Christians,  and  it  is 
explicitly  avowed  or  tacitly  assumed  by  nearly  all  the 
writers  of  our  period.  Paul's  belief  in  the  resurrec- 
tion, as  was  seen  in  a  previous  chapter,  was  not  due  to 
his  desire  to  give  all  Christian  believers  a  part  in  the 
blessedness  inaugurated  by  the  return  of  Christ.  As  he 
conceived  it,  it  was  a  purely  spiritual  thing,  and  a  part 
of  the  process  of  redemption  from  the  flesh.  But  Paul's 
idea  did  not  find  wide  acceptance.  When  the  belief  in 
the  resurrection  had  become  general,  it  was  a  bodily 
resurrection  in  the  material  sense,  a  resurrection  of  the 

1 1  Thess.  iv.  13  sq. ;  cf .  also  1  Cor.  xv, 


454  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

flesh,  that  was  commonly  assumed.1  Of  course  the  belief 
found  support  in  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  which  had 
been  pictured  from  an  early  day  by  most  Christians  as  a 
mere  revivification  of  the  fleshly  body  which  had  lain  in 
the  tomb;  but  it  would  be  a  mistake  to  suppose  that 
Christ's  resurrection  was  the  primary  ground  of  the 
belief.  In  strict  consistency,  the  idea  of  a  resurrection 
of  the  flesh  should  have  existed  only  where  the  expecta- 
tion of  an  earthty  and  visible  kingdom  of  Christ  pre- 
vailed; but  in  reality  it  was  shared  by  many  who  do  not 
seem  to  have  looked  for  such  a  kingdom.  Clement,  for 
example,  who  is  entirely  free  from  sensuous  views  of  the 
future,  makes  much  of  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh,  and 
takes  great  pains  to  show  its  credibility.2  Clearly  it  was 
regarded  by  him  and  by  others,  in  the  period  with  which 
we  are  dealing,  as  an  essential  article  of  the  Christian 
faith,  and  as  such  it  entered  into  the  creed  of  the  church, 
and  maintained  itself  even  after  chiliasm  and  everything 
like  it  had  entirely  disappeared. 

But  it  was  natural  that  where  the  resurrection  of  the 
fleshly  body  of  believers  was  conceived  to  be  necessary 
to  the  enjoyment  of  the  blessings  of  salvation,  the  idea 
should  also  find  acceptance  that  a  resurrection  was  neces- 
sary in  the  case  of  unbelievers,  in  order  that  they  should 
suffer  the  punishment  for  their  sins  from  which  the  dis- 
ciples of  Christ  were  to  escape.  A  similar  consideration 
had  led  to  the  growth  of  the  same  belief  among  the  Jews, 
and  it  was  natural  that  it  should  in  the  end  find  general 
acceptance  among  Christians.  Paul  teaches  only  the 
resurrection  of  believers,  the  sole  ground  of  a  resurrec- 
tion being  the  oneness  of  a  man  with  Christ.  But  where 
this  idea  did  not  exist,  and  the  resurrection  was  based,  as 
it  commonly  was,  solely  upon  the  action  of  God,  there 
was  as  much  ground  for  the  resurrection  of  unbelievers 
as  for  that  of  believers,  and  the  need  of  the  former  was 
of  course  enhanced,  as  the  wickedness  of  the  Jewish  and 

1  Compare,  for  instance,  the  old  Roman  symbol  which  has  the  words 
dvdffTaa-iv  <rapi<6s ;  cf .  also  II.  Clem.  9. 

2  I.  Clem.  24  sq.     Compare  also  the  old  Roman  symbol  which  says  nothing 
about  an  earthly  kingdom  in  any  form. 


THE  CHRISTIANITY   OF  THE  CHURCH  AT   LARGE      455 

heathen  world  increasingly  manifested  itself  in  active 
hostility  against  the  Christian  church.  Comparatively 
little  is  said  about  the  matter  in  the  literature  of  our 
period,  the  resurrection  being  commonly  referred  to  in 
general  terms  as  one  of  the  blessings  to  be  enjoyed  by  the 
followers  of  Christ;  but  the  resurrection  of  the  wicked 
is  explicitly  mentioned  in  the  Acts,1  and  in  the  Gospel 
and  Apocalypse  of  John,2  and  Justin  Martyr  in  the 
second  century  emphasizes  it  as  an  essential  factor  of 
the  Christian  faith.3 

It  was  said  above  that  all  early  Christians,  whether 
chiliasts  or  not,  assumed  as  a  matter  of  course  that  sal- 
vation meant  eternal  life  and  the  enjoyment  of  everlast- 
ing felicity  in  the  presence  of  God  and  in  company  with 
Christ  and  his  saints.  But  the  forms  in  which  this 
eternal  life  was  conceived  differed  considerably.  Some, 
especially  the  chiliasts  and  those  who  emphasized  the 
resurrection  of  the  body,  pictured  it  in  more  sensuous, 
others  in  more  spiritual  forms,  but  the  most  characteristic 
conception  was  that  which  connected  it  in  genuine  Greek 
fashion  with  knowledge.  The  writings  of  John  and  of 
the  Gnostics  are  especially  significant  in  this  connection, 
but  the  conception  is  not  confined  to  them.  It  appears 
also  in  2  Peter,4  in  Clement,5  and  in  the  Didache.*  That 
such  a  conception  was  due  in  large  part  to  Hellenic  influ- 
ence, either  directly  or  through  the  medium  of  Hellenistic 
Judaism,  there  can  be  no  doubt.7  It  is  along  this  line, 
in  fact,  that  the  Hellenization  of  Christianity  took  place,8 
and  it  is  interesting  to  observe  that  it  was  this  idea  of 

1  Acts  xxiv.  15.    See  above,  p.  351. 

2  John  v.  29 ;  Rev.  xx.  12  sq.    In  the  latter  passage  the  first  and  second 
resurrections  are  carefully  distinguished. 

3  Apol.  1.6.  4  2  Pet.  i.  3  sq. 

51.  Clem.  30.  The  words  of  Clement  are  especially  striking:  "Through 
him  the  Lord  willed  that  we  should  taste  of  immortal  knowledge."  Compare 
also  the  doxology  at  the  close  of  II.  Clement. 

e  Didache  9,  10. 

7  It  is  significant  that  the  idea  is  not  confined  to  philosophers  and  students, 
but  that  it  appears  even  in  writings  of  men  of  little  culture  who  were  entirely 
unfamiliar  and  out  of  sympathy  with  the  philosophical  tendencies  of  the  age. 

8  See  Harnack :  Dogmengeschichte,  3te  Auflage,  I.  S.  158  sq.    (Eng.  Trans.  I. 
p.  167  sq.). 


456  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

future  salvation  as  consisting  in  knowledge  of  and  com- 
munion with  the  divine,  that  finally  drove  out  the  sensu- 
ous notions  of  the  chiliasts,  the  Greek  spirit  displacing 
the  Jewish  in  this  case  as  in  so  many  others.  But  all 
that  lies  far  beyond  our  horizon.  The  conception  itself 
appears  only  in  the  latter  part  of  the  period  with  which 
we  are  dealing,  and  can  hardly  have  had  a  place  in  the 
thought  of  the  earliest  Christians,  whether  Jewish  or 
Gentile.  But  whatever  may  have  been  the  views  of  this 
or  that  individual  or  party  within  the  church  touching 
the  nature  of  the  future  life,  it  was  agreed  by  all  that  it 
would  mean  supreme  and  lasting  blessedness  to  all  the 
saved;  and  thus  it  was  possible  to  appeal  to  the  peculiar 
needs  and  desires  of  every  man.  Whether  health,  or 
wealth,  or  pleasure,  or  power,  or  knowledge,  or  purity, 
or  holiness  was  the  supreme  aspiration  of  any  one,  that 
aspiration,  it  was  promised,  he  should  find  completely 
satisfied  in  the  future  life  with  God,  and  in  its  proclama- 
tion of  that  life  therefore  is  to  be  found  the  chief  per- 
suasive power  of  the  Gospel,  whether  it  addressed  itself 
to  the  lower  or  the  higher,  to  the  worst  or  the  best  classes 
of  society. 

Thus  Christianity  came  to  the  world  at  large  both  as  a 
law  and  as  a  promise ;  or,  rather,  it  would  be  more  correct 
to  say  that  it  came  as  a  promise  which  had  a  law  wrapped 
up  within  itself,  —  a  promise  whose  fulfilment  was  condi- 
tioned upon  the  observance  of  that  law.  The  law  was 
looked  upon  not  as  a  burden  or  an  infliction,  but  as  a 
blessing.  It  constituted  an  integral  part  of  the  Gospel. 
The  revelation  of  it  through  Christ  meant  that  the  pos- 
sibility was  opened  to  men  of  securing  eternal  felicity. 
Law  and  Gospel  were  thus  correlative,  not  exclusive 
terms.  The  Christian  law  itself  was  Gospel;  the  law 
was  a  saving  law.1  It  was  under  this  aspect  that  it  was 
commonly  contrasted  with  the  law  of  the  Jews,  which 
had  no  saving  power,  and  with  the  mere  human  laws  of 
the  heathen.  Only  the  law  revealed  through  Christ 
opened  to  men  the  way  of  life.  Thus  even  though  salva- 

1  Cf.,  e.g.,  Jas.  i.  18,  21  sq. ;  Heb.  viii.  10,  x.  16 ;  Hennas :  Simil.  VI.  1. 


THE  CHRISTIANITY   OF   THE   CHURCH   AT   LARGE      457 

tion  had  been  regarded  as  the  mere  natural  result  of  the 
observance  of  the  law,  as  growing  out  of  it  by  an  inevi- 
table necessity  and  quite  independently  of  God's  appoint- 
ment, it  would  still  have  been  in  a  sense  God's  gift ;  for 
the  revelation  of  the  law  by  him  alone  made  salvation 
accessible  to  men.  Bat  the  fact  is  that  salvation  was 
universally  regarded  as  God's  gift  in  a  higher  and  more 
direct  sense  than  this.  Eternal  life  was  not  conceived  as 
the  mere  natural  and  necessary  result  of  righteous  living, 
but  as  a  blessing  prepared  and  promised  by  God  himself. 
Throughout  the  literature  of  the  period,  indeed,  this 
aspect  of  salvation  is  emphasized.  Everywhere  it  is 
recognized  as  a  divine  blessing,  never  as  the  mere  product 
of  human  effort  and  attainment.1  This,  of  course,  was 
entirely  in  line  with  the  original  proclamation  of  the 
Gospel  by  Jesus,  and  with  the  conception  of  it  which 
prevailed  from  the  very  beginning  among  his  disciples. 
As  Jews,  they  saw  in  it  only  the  announcement  of  the 
fulfilment  of  the  divine  promise  made  long  ago  to  their 
fathers ;  as  Gentiles,  the  revelation  of  God's  love  and  the 
gracious  offer  of  his  salvation  to  all  men.  That  the  at- 
tainment of  such  salvation  was  made  dependent  upon 
the  fulfilment  of  a  certain  condition,  was  not  thought  to 
make  it  any  the  less  God's  free  gift.  For  that  condition 
was  a  necessary,  not  an  arbitrary,  one.  And  it  was,  more- 
over, not  in  any  sense  a  barrier  between  man  and  his  sal- 
vation, but  a  positive  means,  and  the  only  possible  means, 
to  the  attainment  of  that  salvation  which,  whatever  else 
it  was,  must  be  oneness  in  will  and  character  with 
God. 

But  that  condition,  which  is  in  substance  simply  the 
faithful  and  earnest  observance  of  God's  law  revealed 
through  Christ,  involves  certain  other  conditions,  which 
are  often  joined  with  it  in  the  writings  of  our  period,  and 
which  are  sometimes  mentioned  alone,  and  thus  seem  to 
acquire  an  independent  value  which  they  do  not  in  fact 
possess.  It  involves,  for  example,  repentance,  without 

*Cf.,  e.g.,  Heb.  i.  14,  et  passim;  Jas.  i.  18;  2  Pet.  i.  3  sq. ;  I.  Clem.  59; 
Barnabas  3,  16 ;  Hermas :  Vis.  1.  3 ;  Simil.  VIII.  6,  etc. 


458  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE 

which  no  man  will  or  can  observe  the  law  of  God.  If  he 
does  not  regret  his  non-observance  and  his  violation  of 
God's  commands  in  the  past,  he  will  not  strive  to  observe 
them  in  the  present;  and  if  he  is  honest  in  his  endeavor 
to  keep  them,  he  will  repent  day  by  day  of  his  repeated 
failures.  And  so  the  importance  of  repentance  is  dwelt 
upon  by  most  of  the  writers  with  whom  we  are  dealing, 
and  it  may  fairly  be  assumed  that  it  was  inculcated  wher- 
ever emphasis  was  laid  upon  the  observance  of  God's  law. 
But  back  both  of  the  effort  to  keep  the  divine  law  re- 
vealed by  Christ,  and  of  the  repentance  which  precedes 
such  effort,  lies  faith,  the  primary  condition  of  Christian 
living.  Paul  was  not  alone  among  early  Christians  in 
emphasizing  faith.  Its  indispensable  character  was  every- 
where recognized.  And  yet  it  is  a  noteworthy  fact,  that 
almost  nowhere  did  it  mean  what  it  meant  to  Paul. 
Indeed,  to  one  who  believed  that  Christianity  is  a  law, 
and  that  the  Christian  life  consists  in  keeping  that  law, 
as  most  of  Paul's  contemporaries  did,  faith  could  not 
mean  what  it  meant  to  him.  Instead  of  being  the  pro- 
found spiritual  act  by  which  we  identify  ourselves  with 
Christ  in  his  death  and  resurrection,  faith,  as  conceived 
by  most  of  the  men  with  whom  we  have  been  dealing,  is 
simply  the  assured  conviction  that  what  God  has  prom- 
ised or  threatened,  he  will  perform.  It  is  thus  in  its 
essence  intellectual,  and  as  such  the  opposite  of  doubt,  or 
of  the  double-mindedness  of  which  James  speaks.1  Thus 
conceived,  faith  simply  furnishes  the  motive  which  leads 
a  man  to  obey  the  law  of  God,  and  thus  secure  salvation. 
If  he  does  not  believe  that  the  law  really  is  God's  law, 
and  if  he  does  not  believe  that  God  will  reward  those  who 
obey  and  punish  those  who  disobey  it,  he  will  neither 
regret  his  past  disregard  of  it,  nor  endeavor  to  observe  it 
in  the  future.  And  so  faith  is  an  indispensable  condition 
of  salvation,  preceding  both  repentance  and  righteousness. 
But  the  faith  which  only  supplies  a  motive  can  conceiv- 
ably exist  without  leading  to  obedience,  and  James  at 
least  actually  contemplates  such  a  contingency,  when  he 

1  Jas.  i.  8 ;  cf.  also  i.  6,  ii.  22 ;  Hermas :  Hand.  IX.,  and  II.  Clem.  11. 


THE   CHRISTIANITY    OF   THE   CHURCH    AT    LARGE      459 

speaks  of  faith  as  dead  if  not  accompanied  by  works.1 
Thus  faith,  though  necessary,  is  not  the  all-sufficient 
condition  of  salvation.  Without  it  a  man  cannot  be 
saved;  with  it,  even  though  he  retains  it  as  long  as  he 
lives,  he  may  fall  short  of  salvation.  The  contrast  be- 
tween this  view  and  Paul's  on  the  one  hand,  and  between 
it  and  Jesus'  view  on  the  other  hand,  is  very  marked. 
And  yet  it  was  this  view,  and  not  Christ's  or  Paul's, 
which  entered  into  the  thought  of  the  church  at  large.2 
A  Christian  who  had  this  conception  of  faith  might  still 
emphasize  its  fundamental  saving  quality,  and  might 
even  reproduce  Paul's  language  concerning  it,  without 
realizing  that  there  was  any  disagreement  between  him- 
self and  the  great  apostle  to  the  Gentiles ; 3  for  it  is  pos- 
sible to  think  of  the  righteous  life  as  the  mere  outgrowth 
of  the  motive  which  lies  back  of  it.  Viewed  thus,  it  is 
not  faith  and  works  which  constitute  the  condition  of 
salvation,  but  faith  eventuating  or  bearing  fruit  in  works, 
—  a  formula  which  is  not  so  far  removed  from  Paul's 
own.  And  yet  the  agreement  between  this  idea,  even 
when  thus  expressed,  and  the  idea  of  Paul  is  only 
apparent.  In  reality  they  are  as  wide  asunder  as  the 
poles. 

The  conception  of  faith  as  a  motive,  leading  a  man  to 
enter  upon  and  continue  in  the  Christian  life,  resulted 
not  unnaturally  in  a  farther  idea  of  it  that  ultimately 
secured  wide  acceptance,  and  obscure  hints  of  which  are 
found  even  in  the  period  we  are  dealing  with.  According 
to  that  idea,  faith  is  the  acceptance  of  certain  theological 
propositions,  and  finally  of  a  regular  creed,  those  proposi- 
tions, which  later  went  to  constitute  the  creed,  being 
regarded  simply  as  the  formulation  of  the  grounds  upon 
which  the  Christian  law  and  its  sanctions  were  supposed 
to  rest,  and  without  which  therefore  that  law  could  not 

1  Jas.  ii.  14  sq. ;  cf.  also  i.  22  sq. ;  and  Hernias  :  Simil.  VIII.  9. 

2  Compare,  for  instance,  Heb.  iv.  2,  vi.  12,  18,  the  whole  of  chap,  xi.,  and 
especially  xi.  6.    Compare  also  I.  Clem.  12.    There  can  be  no  doubt  that  this 
view  was  held  by  all  those  who  shared  in  the  conception  of  Christianity  which 
has  been  described. 

*Cf.,  e.0.,  I.  Clem.  32. 


460  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

appeal  to  men  with  convincing  power.1  Conceived  thus 
as  a  formulation  of  those  truths  which  supply  the  motive 
for  Christian  living,  the  earliest  creeds  had  a  distinctly 
practical  purpose.  But  faith  in  such  statements  of  truth 
having  once  come  to  be  recognized  as  a  primary  condition 
of  salvation,  it  was  inevitable  that  when  the  interest 
underlying  them  had  become  chiefly  intellectual,  and  the 
statements  themselves  largely  speculative,  faith  in  them 
should  still  be  regarded  as  of  fundamental  importance  and 
orthodoxy  become  the  chief  criterion  of  Christian  disci- 
pleship.  But  all  this  lies  far  beyond  our  period;  only 
the  beginnings  of  the  process  are  to  be  detected  in  some 
of  the  writings  with  which  we  are  dealing.2 

It  has  been  already  said  that  salvation  was  universally 
regarded  in  the  early  church  as  the  gift  of  God ;  that  it 
was  always  recognized  as  a  divine  blessing,  and  never  as 
the  mere  product  of  human  effort  and  attainment.  But 
the  grace  of  God  was  manifested  not  alone  in  his  offer  of 
salvation  to  men,  and  in  the  revelation  of  his  righteous 
will  by  whose  observance  that  salvation  might  be  attained, 
but  also  in  his  readiness  to  assist  men  in  their  efforts  to 
keep  his  law  and  to  forgive  them  for  their  breaches  of  it. 
Everywhere  this  twofold  action  of  God  is  recognized.  It 
is  not  that  the  forgiveness  and  the  help  render  a  man's 
own  action  unnecessary.  Only  those  that 'strive  earnestly 
to  keep  God's  law,  and  truly  regret  their  failures,  are 
assisted  in  their  efforts  and  granted  the  divine  forgive- 
ness ;  but  all  such  can  surely  count  on  receiving  gracious 
aid  and  merciful  treatment.  Thus  God  not  simply  makes 
salvation  possible  by  revealing  his  will  to  men;  he  also 
does  something  toward  making  it  actual  by  forgiving  and 
assisting  them. 

But  the  idea  was  a  common  one  that  God  does  even 
more  than  this;  that  he  elects  for  himself,  in  fact,  a 
people  to  be  heirs  of  his  promised  salvation.  This  idea 

1  Of.,  e.g.,  I  Tim.  vi.  21,  and  Jude  3, 20,  where  "  faith  "  is  used  in  an  objec- 
tive sense  for  the  statement  of  truth  which  has  been  handed  down,  fides  quse 
creditur. 

*Cf.,e.g.,  in  addition  to  the  passages  referred  to  in  the  previous  note, 
1  John  iv.  and  v. 


THE   CHRISTIANITY   OF   THE  CHURCH   AT   LARGE      461 

doubtless  had  its  root  in  the  Jews'  historic  consciousness 
that  they  were  God's  chosen  people.  Into  their  heritage 
it  was  commonly  believed  by  the  early  Christians  that  the 
disciples  of  Christ  had  entered,  and  it  was  inevitable, 
consequently,  that  they  should  regard  themselves  as 
God's  elect,  in  as  true  a  sense  as  the  Jews  had  ever  done. 
But  the  ground  of  their  election  could  not  be  found  in 
ancestry  or  nationality.  It  must  lie  somewhere  else;  and 
it  was  natural  that,  with  their  all-controlling  conception 
of  Christianity  as  a  law,  they  should  find  it  in  their 
observance  of  that  law.  The  election  of  God  is  spoken 
of  sometimes,  to  be  sure,  in  such  an  unqualified  way  as 
seemingly  to  imply  that  it  is  thought  of  as  absolutely  un- 
conditioned by  anything  in  man.  But  many  passages 
in  the  same  writings,  as  indeed  the  entire  conception  of 
the  Gospel  which  underlies  them,  show  clearly  enough 
that  the  election  is  not  independent  of  man's  conduct, 
but  that  it  is  either  a  general  determination  that  they 
shall  be  saved  who  live  truly  Christian  lives,  or  the  par- 
ticular choice  of  those  who  it  is  foreseen  will  thus  live.1 

God  is  thus  thought  of  not  simply  as  offering  salvation 
and  revealing  the  way  thereto,  but  also  as  choosing  those 
who  shall  enjoy  it,  or,  in  other  words,  as  choosing  his 
church.2  It  is  for  this  church,  for  his  elect  children,  that 
God  does  everything  that  can  be  done.  He  forgives  their 
sins,  is  long-suffering  toward  them,  bestows  his  grace 
upon  them,  sends  them  his  Spirit,  guards  and  guides 
them,  educates,  sanctifies,  perfects,  and  establishes  them. 
But  all  these  things  he  does  only  for  those  who  prove 
themselves  worthy  of  such  mercies.  Thus  salvation  is 
indeed  of  God;  man  does  not  and  cannot  save  himself 
alone;  it  is  God  that  saves  him.3  And  yet  with  this 
genuinely  Jewish  idea  of  a  covenant  people,  chosen  and 

1  Cf.  Jas.  ii.  5;  iv.  8;  2  Pet.  i.  10;  Barnabas  3;  I.  Clem.  58;  II.  Clem.  14; 
and  especially  Hernias :  Simil.  VIII.  6. 

2  According  to  Hernias :   ( Vis.  II.  4)  the  church  was  created  before  all 
things,  and  even  the  world  was  formed  for  its  sake.    Cf.  also  II.  Clem.  14, 
where  it  is  said  that  the  church  was  created  before  the  sun  and  moon. 

8  It  was  in  its  universal  recognition  of  the  divine  activity  in  salvation  that 
the  church  at  large  approached  nearest  to  the  thought  of  Paul. 


462  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

prepared  and  perfected  by  God,  is  combined  the  idea,  at 
once  Jewish  and  Greek,  that  a  man  must  work  out  his 
own  salvation,  that  the  gifts  of  God  are  given  only  to 
those  that  deserve  them,  and  that  only  as  a  man  fulfils 
the  divine  will  can  he  enjoy  the  benefits  which  God  has 
offered. 

A  striking  evidence  of  the  wide  prevalence,  both  in 
Pauline  and  non-Pauline  circles,  of  the  type  of  Chris- 
tianity which  has  been  described  is  furnished  by  the 
Synoptic  Gospels.  The  authors  of  all  three  of  them 
believed  in  the  universality  of  the  Gospel,  but  none  of 
them,  not  even  Luke,  based  his  belief  upon  the  Pauline 
principle  of  the  Christian's  freedom  from  all  law.  That 
the  Gospel  was  preached  to  the  Gentiles  was  due  simply 
to  the  fact  that  the  Jews  to  whom  it  was  first  offered 
rejected  it.1  They  did  not  regard  the  observance  of  the 
ceremonial  law  of  the  Jews  as  binding  upon  any  one,  but, 
like  the  church  at  large,  they  looked  upon  the  Christian 
life  as  the  faithful  observance  of  God's  commands,  or  of 
the  commands  of  Christ,  as  Matthew  phrases  it.2  And 
so  they  all  emphasize  repentance  as  the  fundamental  con- 
dition of  salvation,  and  in  the  Book  of  Acts,  which  was 
written  by  the  same  author  as  the  third  Gospel,  repent- 
ance is  represented  as  occupying  the  foremost  place  even 
in  Paul's  preaching.3 

It  is  true  that  the  Gospel  of  Luke  and  the  Book  of  Acts 
reveal  more  of  the  spirit  of  Paul  than  the  Gospels  of 
Matthew  and  Mark  and  the  other  works  of  which  mention 
has  been  made ;  that  more  emphasis  is  laid  in  them  upon 
the  abounding  love  and  free  grace  of  God,  of  which  Paul 
makes  so  much.  And  it  is  true  that  their  author  was 
especially  interested  in  the  great  apostle  to  the  Gentiles, 
and  believed  himself  to  be  in  complete  agreement  with 
him.  But  for  all  that  he  was  not  in  any  true  sense  a 
Paulinist.  He  did  not  understand  that  there  was  any 
difference  between  the  principles  of  Paul  and  those  of 

1  Compare  especially  the  Book  of  Acts,  which  was  written  by  the  author 
of  the  third  Gospel,  and  in  which  this  is  repeatedly  emphasized. 

2  Matt,  xxviii.  20.  a  CL,  e.g.,  Acts  xx.  21,  xxvi.  20. 


THE   CHRISTIANITY   OF   THE   CHURCH   AT   LARGE      463 

the  other  apostles,  and  he  did  not  take  his  part  over 
against  them.  He  emphasizes  the  prerogatives  of  the 
Twelve  Apostles  even  more  strongly  than  the  other  evan- 
gelists, and  he  gives  no  hint  of  a  desire  to  provide  a 
place  for  Paul,  or  to  rank  him  alongside  of  the  Twelve. 
In  fact,  he  always  treats  him  as  subordinate  to  them  and 
as  deriving  his  authority  from  them.  It  is  possible  that 
he  felt  the  influence  of  Paul  to  some  extent,  as  multitudes 
of  Christians  felt  it  who  had  not  themselves  known  the 
great  apostle;  but  there  is  no  trace  in  his  writings  of 
Paul's  fundamental  conception  of  the  work  of  Christ 
and  of  the  Christian  life,  and  his  emphasis  upon  the 
free  grace  and  the  forgiving  love  of  God  does  not  in 
the  least  interfere  with  his  adoption  of  those  common 
ideas  of  Christianity  which  prevailed  so  widely  in  his 
day,  and  which  have  already  been  described. 

2.   THE  CHRISTIANITY  OF  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS 

One  of  the  most  striking  examples  of  the  way  in  which 
a  man  could  feel  the  influence  of  Paul,  and  make  good 
use  of  some  of  his  ideas,  while  remaining  in  fundamental 
agreement  with  the  common  conception  of  Christianity 
which  has  been  sketched,  is  to  be  found  in  the  so-called 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  which  was  written  probably  in 
the  reign  of  the  Emperor  Domitian,  a  generation  after 
the  apostle's  death.1  It  has  been  commonly  taken  for 
granted  that  the  epistle  was  addressed,  as  its  title  implies, 

1  Domitian  reigned  from  81  to  96.  The  epistle  cannot  have  been  written 
later  than  his  time,  for  it  was  known  to  Clement,  who  wrote  before  the  close  of 
the  century.  On  the  other  hand,  it  was  evidently  the  work  of  a  Christian  of 
the  second  generation  (cf.  ii.  3),  and  the  conditions  which  it  presupposes  —  dis- 
couragement, faintheartedness,  loss  of  faith  and  zeal,  due  to  hope  long  deferred, 
and  to  the  pressure  of  persecution  —  suggest  a  late  rather  than  an  early  period 
in  the  history  of  the  church  or  churches  addressed.  So  the  references  to  ear- 
lier days  in  which  the  readers  had  shown  their  steadfastness  under  persecution 
(x.  32  sq.),  and  the  mention  of  former  leaders  of  the  church,  who  had  witnessed 
a  good  confession,  and  had  been  succeeded  by  other  rulers  (xiii.  7,  17,  24), 
point  in  the  same  direction.  We  have,  it  is  true,  comparatively  little  infor- 
mation about  the  condition  of  the  Christians  during  the  last  three  decades  of 
the  first  century,  but  we  know  that  the  Christians  of  Rome,  to  whom  the 
epistle  was  probably  addressed  (see  p.  4t>8,  below),  suffered  at  any  rate  under 
Nero  and  Domitian,  and  it  is  natural  to  think  of  the  persecution  under  Nero 
as  the  earlier  time  of  distress  referred  to  in  x.  32  sq.,  and  the  persecuting 


464  THE    APOSTOLIC   AGE 

to  Jewish  Christians,  and  many  scholars  have  accordingly 
thought  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem  or  the  churches  of 
Palestine  as  its  recipients.  But  only  a  Christian  who 
was  intimately  connected  with  the  Mother  Church,  and 
whose  authority  was  very  high  there,  could  have  addressed 
the  members  of  that  church  in  the  tone  employed  in  this 
epistle,  and  certainly  we  should  not  expect  such  a  man 
to  write  to  his  Aramaic-speaking  brethren  in  Greek,  and 
elegant  Greek  at  that,  and  to  use  uniformly  the  Septuagint 
instead  of  the  Hebrew  text  of  the  Old  Testament,  even 
where  the  two  texts  differ  widely.  Moreover,  the  reference 
to  the  great  generosity  of  those  addressed,  and  to  their  con- 
tinued ministrations  to  the  necessities  of  the  saints,1  does 
not  accord  well  with  what  we  know  of  the  long-continued 
poverty  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem;  and  that  Timothy 
should  be  expected  to  return  thither  upon  his  release  from 
imprisonment,2  is  the  last  thing  we  should  expect. 

measures  of  Domitian  as  the  trials  which  the  Christians  were  enduring  at  the 
time  the  epistle  was  written  (x.  36  sq.,  xii.  3  sq.). 

Many  scholars  contend  that  the  author's  language  in  regard  to  the  Jew- 
ish ceremonial  implies  that  the  temple  of  Jerusalem  was  still  standing  at 
the  time  he  wrote,  and  that  if  it  had  been  already  destroyed  he  would  cer- 
tainly have  referred  to  the  fact,  and  would  have  used  it  as  an  argument 
against  apostasy  to  Judaism.  Had  he  been  writing  to  Christians  who  were 
in  danger  of  falling  back  into  Judaism,  it  is  true  that  he  might  have  been 
expected  to  make  use  of  the  great  catastrophe  as  an  ocular  demonstration  of 
God's  final  condemnation  of  the  Jewish  people,  and  of  his  definitive  abroga- 
tion of  the  old  covenant.  But  he  was  not  addressing  such  persons  (see 
below,  p.  467),  and  the  destruction  of  the  temple  had  no  bearing  whatever 
upon  his  argument.  He  was  dealing  throughout  with  Judaism,  not  in  its 
existing  but  in  its  original  form,  and  whether  the  Jewish  rites  and  cere- 
monies were  still  practised,  and  the  Jewish  religion  still  had  its  adherents,  was 
a  matter  of  no  consequence  to  him.  It  is  noticeable  indeed  that  he  never 
mentions  the  temple.  It  is  always  the  tabernacle  of  which  he  speaks,  thus 
making  it  clear  enough  that  the  changes  which  took  place  in  the  course  of  the 
centuries  in  the  condition  of  the  Jewish  people,  and  in  the  external  features  and 
accessories  of  their  worship,  were  of  no  significance  to  him.  He  uses  in  his 
comparison  of  the  old  and  the  new  covenant,  not  the  Judaism  of  his  own  time,  — 
a  religious  system  which  he  and  his  readers  knew  from  their  own  observation 
or  experience,  —  but  the  Judaism  of  the  Scriptures,  and  he  might  have  written 
in  just  the  way  he  does  had  he  never  seen  a  Jew,  and  had  the  rites  and  cere- 
monies of  Judaism  ceased  to  be  practised  centuries  before  his  day.  It  is  worthy 
of  notice  in  this  connection,  that  in  Clement's  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  (written 
certainly  twenty-five  years  or  more  after  the  destruction  of  the  temple)  there 
is  the  same  disregard  of  the  fact  that  the  temple  is  already  destroyed  and 
tin-  sacrifices  no  longer  offered  (cf.  chap.  4). 

1  Heb.  vi.  10.  2  Heb.  xiii.  23. 


THE   CHRISTIANITY   OF   THE   CHURCH   AT   LARGE      465 

But  not  simply  is  it  altogether  improbable  that  the 
epistle  was  addressed  to  the  church  of  Jerusalem  or  to 
the  churches  of  Palestine,  it  is  extremely  unlikely  that 
it  was  addressed  to  Jewish  Christians  at  all.  It  is  true 
that  the  title  777309 f  E/3/Jcuou?  is  found  in  all  our  manuscripts. 
But  it  does  not  constitute  a  part  of  the  text  of  the  epistle, 
and  no  weight  whatever  can  be  attached  to  it,  any  more 
than  to  the  name  of  Paul,  which  is  connected  with  it. 
The  internal  indications  which  are  commonly  assumed  to 
confirm  the  correctness  of  the  title  signally  fail  to  do  so. 
The  apparent  identification  of  the  readers  with  the  chil- 
dren of  Abraham  and  with  the  chosen  people  of  the  Old 
Testament 1  proves  nothing ;  for  Abraham  is  made  by  Paul 
the  father  of  all  Christians,  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews,2 
and  what  is  more  to  the  point  in  this  particular  case, 
Clement  of  Rome,  in  his  letter  to  the  Corinthians,  which 
was  addressed  to  a  Gentile  church,  and  was  written 
shortly  after  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  speaks  of  "  our 
Father  Jacob"3  and  "our  Father  Abraham,"4  and  when 
referring  to  the  Old  Testament  worthies  in  general,  he 
calls  them  "our  fathers."5  Nor  is  anything  proved  by 
the  extended  use  which  the  author  makes  of-  the  Old 
Testament,  for  Clement  makes  even  larger  use  of  it  than 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  The  Jewish  Scriptures  con- 
stituted the  chief  source  for  a  knowledge  of  God's  will 
and  truth,  not  to  Clement  alone,  but  to  his  readers  as 
well;  and  he  assumes  throughout  a  thorough  acquaintance 
with  those  Scriptures  on  the  part  of  those  to  whom  he 
writes.6  The  truth  is  that  from  the  very  beginning  the 
Gentiles  accepted  the  Old  Testament  as  a  Christian  book, 
and  it  was  for  a  long  time  the  only  authoritative  Script- 
ures that  they  had.  They  used  it  in  their  services,  they 

1  Heb.  i.  1,  ii.  16.  4  chap.  31. 

2  Rom.  iv.  1-12.  6  Chap.  62. 
8  Clement:  Ad  Cor.,  chap.  4. 

6  Compare  chap.  45:  "Ye  have  searched  the  Scriptures  which  are  true, 
which  were  given  through  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  ye  know  that  nothing  un- 
righteous or  counterfeit  is  written  in  them  "  ;  and  chap.  53:  "  Ye  know,  and 
know  well,  the  sacred  Scriptures,  dearly  beloved,  and  ye  have  searched  into 
the  oracles  of  God."  Compare  also  chap.  02,  which  contains  words  to  the 
same  effect. 


466  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

read  and  studied  it  diligently,  they  accepted  its  state- 
ments as  the  word  of  God,  and  they  never  thought  of 
questioning  its  authority  in  any  respect.  It  belonged  to 
the  Gentile  as  truly  as  to  the  Jewish  wing  of  the  church, 
and  an  argument  drawn  from  it  had  just  as  much  weight 
with  the  former  as  with  the  latter.  It  is  clear  therefore 
that  the  extended  use  of  the  Old  Testament  in  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  indicates  nothing  as  to  the  Jewish  or 
Gentile  character  of  its  readers. 

The  detailed  comparison  which  the  author  institutes 
between  the  old  covenant  and  the  new,  and  the  emphasis 
which  he  lays  upon  the  superiority  of  the  latter,  likewise 
prove  nothing;  for  the  superiority  is  emphasized  not  in 
order  to  derogate  from  the  dignity  of  the  old,  but  simply 
in  order  to  magnify  the  glory  of  the  new,  and  there  is 
every  evidence  that  it  is  done  not  to  convince  sceptical 
minds,  but  only  to  quicken  and  arouse  the  courage  and 
zeal  of  believing  but  weak  and  fainting  souls.  A  "word 
of  exhortation,"  the  author  calls  his  epistle,1  not  a  "word 
of  instruction."  And  certainly  nothing  could  be  better 
calculated  to  strengthen  the  confidence  and  inspire  the 
enthusiasm  of  Christians  who  believed  in  the  divine 
authority  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  even  though 
they  were  not  Jews  and  had  no  inclination  to  become 
Jews,  than  such  considerations  as  he  presents.  The 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  at  the  time  it  was  written, 
and  is  still,  just  as  effective  a  weapon  against  weakness 
and  discouragement,  and  loss  of  Christian  faith  and  zeal 
in  general,  as  against  apostasy  to  Judaism,  which  it  is 
commonly  assumed  it  must  have  been  the  author's  chief 
aim  to  prevent.  It  is  to  be  noticed,  indeed,  that  in 
the  practical  exhortations  and  warnings  with  which  the 
epistle  is  filled,  and  which  reveal  most  clearly  the  real 
aim  it  was  written  for,  nothing  whatever  is  said  about 
apostasy  to  Judaism.  The  readers  are  never  warned 
against  falling  back  into  the  religion  of  Moses,  although 
if  that  is  what  the  writer  feared,  it  would  seem  that  he 
could  hardly  have  failed,  when  he  contrasted  the  new 

i  Heb.  xiii.  22. 


THE   CHRISTIANITY   OF  THE   CHURCH   AT   LARGE      467 

covenant  with  the  old,  to  call  direct  attention  to  the  folly 
of  deserting  the  one  for  the  other.  But  instead  of  doing 
that,  he  draws  lessons  of  an  entirely  different  kind: 
"  How  shall  we  escape,  if  we  neglect  so  great  salva- 
tion?"1 "Take  heed  lest  there  shall  be  in  any  one  of 
you  an  evil  heart  of  unbelief."2  "Let  us  draw  near  with 
boldness  that  we  may  receive  mercy."3  "Be  not  slug- 
gish, but  imitators  of  them  who  through  faith  and 
patience  inherit  the  promises."4  "Let  us  hold  fast  the 
confession  of  our  hope  that  it  waver  not."5  These  are 
fair  samples  of  the  exhortations  scattered  through  the 
epistle.6  And  when  the  author  warns  his  readers  against 
the  worst  of  all  sins,  —the  wilful  denial  and  repudia- 
tion of  Christ,  after  once  accepting  him,7  —  there  is  no 
sign  that  he  thinks  of  such  apostasy  as  due  to  the 
influence  of  Judaism,  or  as  connected  with  it  in  any 
way.8 

But  not  simply  is  there  no  sign  that  the  author  was 
addressing  Jewish  Christians,  who  he  feared  would  apos- 
tatize to  their  old  faith :  there  are  some  passages,  on  the 
other  hand,  which  make  it  evident  that  he  was  addressing 
Gentiles,  and  Gentiles  who  had  apparently  come  to  Chris- 
tianity not  through  Judaism,  but  directly  from  heathen- 
ism. Thus  he  says  significantly:  "How  much  more  shall 
the  blood  of  Christ  cleanse  your  conscience  from  dead 
works  to  serve  the  living  God  ?  "  9  and  again :  "  Wherefore 
let  us  cease  to  speak  of  the  first  principles  of  Christ  and 
press  on  unto  perfection;  not  laying  again  a  foundation 
of  repentance  from  dead  works,  and  of  faith  toward  God, 
of  the  teaching  of  baptisms  and  of  laying  on  of  hands, 
and  of  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  of  eternal  judg- 

i  Heb.  ii.  3.      2  Heb.  iii.  12.      3  Heb.  iv.  16.      *  Heb.  vi.  12.       5  Heb.  x.  23. 

6  It  is  to  be  noticed  also  that  Clement,  who  was  certainly  addressing  Gen- 
tile Christians,  draws  the  same  lesson  of  the  greater  responsibility  of  Christians, 
as  compared  with  Jews,  due  to  their  greater  knowledge  (chap.  41) . 

7  Heb.  x.  26  sq. 

8  Heb.  xii.  16  is  instructive  in  this  connection.    Esau  sold  his  birthright 
not  because  he  did  not  believe  it  had  value,  but  because  of  the  weakness  of 
the  flesh.     He  gave  away  a  future  blessing  for  a  present  good.    This  is  a  fault 
not  of  sceptics  and  unbelievers,  but  of  weak  people  who  need  inspiration  and 
encouragement. 

9  Heb.  ix.  14. 


468  THE   APOSTOLIC    AGE 

meiit."1  These  passages  do  not  necessarily  show  that 
the  epistle  was  addressed  exclusively  to  Gentile  Chris- 
tians, but  they  do  prove  that  there  were  Gentile  Chris- 
tians among  those  addressed,  and  that  they  were  chiefly 
in  the  mind  of  the  writer.2  In  fact,  all  the  indications 
point  to  a  church  or  group  of  churches  whose  membership 
was  largely  Gentile,  where  the  Jews,  so  far  as  there  were 
any,  had  become  amalgamated  with  their  Gentile  brethren, 
so  that  all  race  distinctions  were  lost  sight  of,  and  the 
disciples  were  thought  of  not  as  Jews  or  Gentiles,  but  as 
Christians.3  Such  were  most  of  the  churches  of  Paul's 
missionary  field,  most  of  the  churches,  indeed,  of  the 
world  at  large  at  an  early  day.  The  congregation  or 
group  of  congregations  addressed  by  the  author  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  might  be  looked  for,  therefore, 
almost  anywhere  in  the  Roman  Empire  outside  of  Pales- 
tine. But  there  are  some  hints  that  point  in  the  direc- 
tion of  Rome,  and  at  least  suggest  that  the  letter  may 
have  been  sent  to  the  Christians  of  that  church.  It  was 
first  used  by  Clement  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians, 
which  was  written  from  Rome  certainly  not  very  long 
afterward.  There  is  little  doubt  that  it  was  well  known 
also  to  Hernias,  who  wrote  in  Rome  a  generation  later. 
Elsewhere  we  find  traces  of  it  only  in  the  latter  part  of 
the  second  century.  The  somewhat  peculiar  phrase, 
"Those  from  Italy,"  by  which  the  author  apparently 
designates  certain  disciples  in  his  own  company,4  seems 

1  Heb.  vi.  1,2.    Nearly  all  the  "principles"  enumerated  in  this  passage 
were  common  to  Jews  and  Christians,  and  a  Christian,  therefore,  in  writing 
to  Jewish  disciples  could  not  refer  to  them  in  such  a  way.    Only  a  heathen 
would  need  to  lay  such  a  foundation  in  accepting  Christ. 

2  Notice  also  the  prohibition  of  fornication  and  adultery  in  xiii.  4. 

8  That  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  addressed  to  Jewish  Christians,  has 
been  the  universal  opinion  of  scholars  until  comparatively  recent  years.  For 
a  defence  of  this  opinion  see,  especially,  Westcott :  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
p.  35  sq. ;  and  Me'ne'goz:  La  Theologie  de  Vtipitre  aux  Hebreux,  p.  18  sq. 
On  the  other  hand,  that  it  was  addressed  to  Gentile  Christians,  or  to 
Christians  in  general  without  regard  to  race,  is  maintained  by  Pfleiderer: 
Das  Urchristenthum,  S.  624  sq.;  Von  Soden:  Hand-Kommentnr,  III.  2,  S. 
10  sq. ;  and  Julicher:  Einlf.itvng  in  das  Neue  Testament,  S.  108  sq.  Cf. 
also  Weizsacker:  Das  apostoliscfre  Zeitalter,  S.  473  sq.  (Bag.  Trans.,  Vol.  II. 
p.  l.TTsq.). 

*  Heb.  xiii.  24. 


THE   CHRISTIANITY   OF  THE  CHURCH    AT   LARGE      469 

also  to  point  to  Rome  or  to  Italy  as  the  home  of  the 
Christians  addressed,  and  the  reference  to  the  generosity 
of  the  latter  agrees  exactly  with  what  we  know  of  the 
church  of  Rome  from  many  other  sources.1 

At  the  time  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  written, 
the  Christians  addressed  were  suffering  persecution,2  and 
the  pressure  was  so  great  that  some  of  them  were  growing 
discouraged,  and  the  danger  was  imminent  that  they  might 
even  forsake  Christ  and  deny  their  faith  altogether.  The 
epistle  was  written  therefore  with. an  eminently  practical 
aim.  It  was  the  writer's  chief  concern  to  arouse  his 
readers  to  their  old-time  faith  and  zeal,  to  impart  re- 
newed courage,  and  to  warn  them  against  the  danger  of 
backsliding  and  apostasy.  With  this  end  in  view,  he 
undertook  to  exhibit  the  superlative  glory  of  Christ's 
person  and  work,  in  order,  on  the  one  hand,  to  kindle 
their  pride  in  and  enthusiasm  for  their  Christian  faith, 
and  to  convince  them  that  the  greatest  sacrifices  and  the 
worst  sufferings  ought  to  be  looked  upon  as  a  small  price 
to  pay  for  the  supreme  blessings  which  Christ  had  secured 
for  his  followers;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  to  impress  them 
with  the  awful  consequences  of  denying  such  a  Christ 
and  repudiating  such  a  salvation.  All  that  he  has  to  say 
about  Christ  and  his  work  is  said  not  with  a  doctrinal 
but  with  a  practical  purpose,  and  that  purpose  leads  him 
to  use  every  opportunity  offered  by  the  course  of  his 
argument  to  exhort  his  readers  to  greater  fidelity,  or  to 
warn  them  against  faithlessness  and  disobedience.  The 
epistle  thus  bears  a  practical  character  throughout  and  is 
as  far  as  possible  from  a  systematic  theological  treatise. 
As  a  consequence,  it  will  not  do  to  declare  the  author's 
conception  of  Christianity  different  from  Paul's,  simply 
because  he  follows  another  line  of  thought  from  that  found 
in  the  epistles  of  the  latter,  and  emphasizes  matters  which 
are  left  subordinate  in  them.  The  line  of  thought  which 
he  pursues,  and  the  emphasis  which  he  puts  upon  certain 

1  Compare,  for  instance,  the  words  of  Dionysius  of  Corinth  quoted  by 
Eusebius:  H.  E.  IV.  23.    The  responsibility  felt  by  that  church  for  the  wel- 
fare of  other  parts  of  Christendom  is  revealed  already  in  Clement's  Epistle. 

2  Heb.  x.  36  sq.,  xii.  3  sq. 


470  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

subjects,  might  be  fully  explained  by  his  practical  purpose. 
But  it  is  true,  nevertheless,  that  the  difference  between 
his  conceptions  and  those  of  Paul  is  clearly  revealed  in 
many  ways,  and  the  practical  character  of  the  epistle  does 
not  serve  in  the  least  to  obscure  the  wide  chasm  that  sepa- 
rates them;  for  it  is  just  in  their  treatment  of  the  practical 
questions  of  the  Christian  life  that  their  ideas  concerning 
the  origin,  basis,  and  nature  of  that  life,  and  the  redeeming 
work  of  Christ,  voice  themselves  most  unequivocally. 

With  the  practical  purpose  already  referred  to,  of 
arousing  his  readers  to  their  old-time  faith  and  zeal  and 
of  imparting  renewed  courage  and  inspiration,  the  author 
gives  concise  expression  in  the  opening  words  of  his 
epistle  to  the  supreme  greatness  of  Christ,  as  the  Son  of 
God,  and  as  God's  agent  in  creation,  revelation,  and 
redemption ;  and  then  goes  on  to  compare  him  with  the 
angels  and  with  Moses,  God's  chief  agents  in  the  earlier 
revelations  of  his  will  and  truth,  pointing  out  how  far 
superior  Christ  is  to  them  in  all  respects ;  for  they  are  but 
servants,  while  he  is  a  son.1  His  elevation  above  the 
angels  is  not  nullified  by  the  fact  that  for  a  little  while 
he  was  made  lower  than  they,  and  partook  of  human  flesh 
and  blood  and  underwent  suffering  and  death;  for  this 
was  only  temporary,  and  it  was  all  done  with  a  purpose, 
—  the  purpose  of  saving  men  by  becoming  one  with  them 
and  passing  through  all  their  experiences  with  them.2 
But  Christ's  superiority  to  the  angels  involves  a  like 
superiority  of  the  revelation  mediated  by  him,  and  the 
writer  is  thus  led  to  warn  his  readers  in  passing  against 
the  peculiar  enormity  of  neglecting  the  salvation  offered 
by  Christ;3  and  in  the  same  way  his  demonstration  of 
Christ's  superiority  to  Moses4  is  followed  immediately 
by  a  practical  exhortation  to  faith  and  obedience,  based 
upon  the  unbelieving  and  disobedient  conduct  of  those 
whom  Moses  led  through  the  wilderness.6  Thus  a  large 
part  of  the  first  section  of  the  epistle  is  filled  with  direct 
practical  appeals  to  the  readers. 

i  Heb.  i.  4-ii.  5.  «  Heb.  ii.  6-18.  8  Heb.  ii.  1-4. 

*  Heb.  iii.  1  sq.  6  Heb.  iii.  7-iv.  13. 


THE   CHRISTIANITY   OF   THE   CHURCH   AT   LARGE      471 

After  exhibiting  Christ's  superiority  to  other  agents 
of  divine  revelation,  and  drawing  some  of  the  practical 
lessons  therefrom,  the  writer  turns  to  a  subject  which 
is  evidently  a  favorite  one  with  him,  and  to  which  he 
devotes  more  than  a  third  of  his  work, —  the  priestly  office 
of  Christ.1  Bat  though  he  dwells  upon  this  subject  at  so 
great  length,  it  is  a  mistake  to  call  it  the  theme  of  his 
epistle.  As  already  remarked,  the  epistle  is  not  doctrinal 
but  practical,  and  its  theme  is  to  be  found  not  in  any  of 
its  theological  passages,  but  in  its  repeated  exhortations 
and  warnings,  to  which  everything  else  is  subservient, 
and  which  look  to  the  one  end  of  confirming  the  faith  and 
zeal  of  its  readers.  And  so  the  long  passage  upon  the 
priesthood  of  Christ  is  intended  primarily  not  to  convey 
instruction,  but  to  quicken  faith  and  inspire  courage. 
In  the  very  beginning  of  it,  the  fact  that  Christ  is  our 
high  priest  is  made  a  reason  for  fidelity  and  a  ground 
of  assured  confidence.2  Though  our  high  priest  is  from 
heaven,  yet  he  is  one  of  us,  and  has  that  human  sympathy 
which  is  essential  to  the  true  discharge  of  the  priestly 
office.3 

After  showing  that  Christ  possesses  also  another  funda- 
mental quality  of  the  true  priest,  in  that  he  was  appointed 
by  God  and  did  not  take  the  office  upon  himself,4  the 
writer  proceeds  to  compare  him  with  Aaron  and  his  suc- 
cessors, the  God-appointed  priestly  line  of  the  old  dispen- 
sation, and  to  exhibit  in  the  most  elaborate  way  his 
infinite  superiority  to  them.  He  introduces  the  subject 
with  a  passage  of  mingled  reproof  and  exhortation ; 6  then, 
taking  his  departure  from  the  words  of  Psalm  ex. :  "  Thou 
art  a  priest  forever  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek, " 6  he 
shows  how  Christ,  as  the  antitype  of  Melchizedek,  a 
greater  than  Abraham  and  Levi,7  is  a  priest  of  a  new  and 
higher  order  than  the  line  of  Aaron.  They  were  made 
priests  after  the  law  of  a  carnal  commandment,  he  after 
the  power  of  an  endless  life ;  they  were  mortal  and  suc- 
ceeded one  another  in  rapid  succession,  he  is  immortal 

*  Heb.  iv.  14-x.  18.    3  Heb.  v.  1  sq.      «  Heb.  v.  11-vi.  20.      *  Heb.  vii.  1-10. 
2  Heb.  iv.  14-16.         *  Heb.  v.  4  sq.      «  Heb.  vi.  20. 


472  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

and  abide th  a  priest  forever;  they  were  earthly,  he  is 
higher  than  the  heavens;  they  were  sinners,  he  is  holy; 
they  were  men  of  infirmity,  he  is  a  son  perfected  for- 
ever more.  But  not  simply  in  his  person,  in  his  work  as 
well,  Christ  is  exalted  infinitely  above  the  high  priests  of 
Aaron's  line.  He  has  obtained  a  more  excellent  ministry 
than  they,  for  they  are  the  ministers  of  an  old  covenant 
which  passes  away,  he  of  a  new  covenant  which  endures 
forever;  they  minister  in  an  earthly  tabernacle,  he  in  a 
heavenly;  they  with  carnal  ordinances,  he  with  spiritual; 
they  offer  the  blood  of  bulls  and  goats,  which  can  at  most 
cleanse  only  the  flesh,  he  offers  his  own  blood,  which  is 
efficacious  for  the  cleansing  of  the  conscience  from  dead 
works  unto  the  service  of  the  living  God;  their  imperfect 
sacrifices  they  must  repeat  continually,  and  yet  they  can 
never  take  away  sins,  while  he  by  the  offering  of  himself 
once  for  all  has  "obtained  eternal  redemption,"  has  "put 
away  sin,"  and  "perfected  forever  them  that  are  sancti- 
fied."1 Having  thus  exhibited  the  superiority  and  the 
infinite  perfection  of  the  priestly  character  and  work  of 
Christ,  the  author  proceeds  at  once2  to  draw  practical 
lessons  from  what  has  been  said,  exhorting  his  readers  to 
renewed  boldness  and  faith  and  steadfastness,  and  warn- 
ing them  against  the  awful  consequences  of  sinning 
wilfully  after  they  have  once  come  to  the  knowledge  of 
the  truth,  for  there  remains  no  second  sacrifice  for  sins;3 
the  sacrifice  of  Christ  is  the  final  one,  as  he  has  shown. 

Appealing  then  to  the  boldness  and  steadfastness  which 
had  been  manifested  by  his  readers  in  the  face  of  a  perse- 
cution they  had  been  called  upon  to  endure  at  an  ear- 
lier time,  he  reminds  them  that  they  have  need  under 
the  present  circumstances  of  the  same  patience,  and  he 
encourages  them  with  the  prospect  of  the  speedy  return 
of  Christ,  when  they  shall  receive  their  reward  if  they 
continue  in  their  faith ; 4  for  the  faith  without  which  they 
cannot  be  saved  is  a  faith  that  takes  hold  upon  the  future 
and  upon  the  unseen,  the  assurance  that  God  will  yet 
reward  those  that  serve  him.  This  is  the  faith  which  has 

i  Heb.  vii.  11-x.  18.  .   2  Heb.  x.  19  sq.      *  Heb.  x.  20-31.      4  Heb.  x.  3?-39. 


THE  CHRISTIANITY  OF  THE  CHURCH  AT   LARGE      473 

actuated  all  the  holy  and  heroic  men  of  God  in  days  that 
are  past,  as  the  author  shows  by  a  long  list  of  Hebrew 
worthies,  whose  experiences  he  recounts  in  eloquent  lan- 
guage, and  the  inspiration  of  whose  example,  reinforced 
by  the  example  of  Christ,  he  employs  to  nerve  the  faint- 
ing hearts  of  his  readers.1  He  finds  still  another  reason 
for  continued  faithfulness  on  their  part  in  the  fact  that 
their  suffering  is  for  their  own  good;  that  it  is  the  chast- 
ening of  God,  who  deals'  with  them  as  a  loving  father 
deals  with  his  children,  that  there  may  be  worked  out  in 
them  the  peaceable  fruit  of  righteousness.2  After  remind- 
ing them  once  more  of  the  contrast  between  the  old  and 
the  new  covenant,  and  of  the  fact  that  their  responsibility 
is  larger  than  that  of  the  fathers,  and  the  penalty  for  un- 
belief and  disobedience  proportionately  greater,3  he  exhorts 
them  to  the  practice  of  various  virtues,  and  warns  them 
against  sundry  vices,  and  finally  concludes  in  the  cus- 
tomary way  with  salutations  and  a  benediction.4 

The  brief  outline  which  has  been  given  shows  how  far 
the  epistle  is  from  being  a  systematic  theological  treatise. 
Theology  there  is  in  it,  indeed,  much  of  it  of  a  very  pro- 
found character;  but  all  of  it  is  made  subservient  to  a 
practical  end,  and  more  than  that,  the  form  and  disposi- 
tion of  the  letter,  as  well  as  the  matter  of  it,  are  largely 
controlled  by  that  end.  It  is,  as  the  writer  himself  calls 
it,  both  in  form  and  in  content  a  \6yos  Trapa/cXrjo-ea)?.5 

But  the  outline  which  has  been  given  shows  also  clearly 
enough  the  marked  contrast  between  the  author's  concep- 
tions and  those  of  Paul.  The  fundamental  difference  is 
in  their  conception  of  the  Christian  life.  By  the  author 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  as  by  James  and  most  of 
the  other  writers  whom  we  have  been  considering,  the 
Christian  life  is  regarded  as  the  faithful  and  continued 
observance  of  God's  will,  by  which  a  man  finally  secures 
salvation.  Salvation  is  thus  wholly  a  future  blessing, 
and  faith,  upon  which  the  author  lays  great  emphasis,  is 
nothing  more  than  a  motive  which  leads  a  man  to  become  a 

1  Heb.  xi.  1-xii.  3.  2  Heb.  xii.  5-13.  3  Heb.  xii.  18-29. 

<  Heb.  xiii.  5  Heb.  xiii.  22. 


474  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

disciple  of  Christ  and  to  endure  unto  the  end.1  Of  Paul's 
controlling  idea  of  the  Christian  life  as  the  divine  life 
in  man,  —  a  life  of  complete  freedom  from  the  flesh  and  the 
law,  brought  about  by  his  mystical  oneness  with  Christ 
in  the  latter's  death  and  resurrection,  —  no  use  is  made, 
although  that  idea  was  peculiarly  adapted  to  add  force  to 
the  author's  practical  appeal.2 

But  though  the  Christian  life  is  thus  a  life  of  obedience 
by  which  a  man  gains  salvation,  the  author  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  lays  great  stress  upon  the  covenant  rela- 
tion that  exists  between  the  Christian  and  his  God.  The 
idea  of  the  Gospel  as  a  new  covenant  is,  in  fact,  very  prom- 
inent and  largely  determines  the  direction  of  his  thinking. 
That  the  Christians  were  heirs  of  God's  covenant  with 
the  children  of  Israel  was  generally  believed  by  the  early 
disciples,  as  has  been  already  seen.  But  the  author  of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  the  first  one,  so  far  as  we 
know,  distinctly  to  formulate  and  elaborate  the  concep- 
tion of  a  new  covenant,  and  he  did  it  possibly  under  the 
influence  of  Paul.3  And  yet  his  interpretation  is  not 
Paul's.  It  is,  in  fact,  identical  with  the  common  view 
of  those  writers  whom  we  have  been  considering.  The 
new  covenant,  -according  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,, 
is  a  covenant  at  once  of  law  and  of  grace.  It  includes 
the  promise  of  the  clear  revelation  of  the  divine  law,  by 
whose  observance  a  man  may  gain  life,  and  also  the 

1  It  is  in  accordance  with  this  idea  that  conversion  to  Christianity  is  repre- 
sented as  "  enlightenment  "  in  x.  32,  and  as  a  reception  of  the  "  knowledge  of 
the  truth  "  in  x.  26. 

2  It  is  true  that  the  author  speaks  of  his  readers  as  "  partakers  of  Christ " 
in  iii.  14,  as  "partakers  of  the  Holy  Spirit"  in  vi.  4,  and  as  "partakers  of 
God's  holiness  "  in  xii.  10;  but  both  in  iii.  14  and  in  xii.  10  he  is  thinking  not 
of  the  present,  but  of  the  ultimate  end  to  which  the  Christian  that  endures 
may  look  forward.    And  in  view  of  his  general  conception  of  the  Christian 
life,  which  is  too  clear  to  be  mistaken,  it  is  evident  that  the  participation  in 
the  Spirit,  which  Christians  already  enjoy,  is  understood  not  in  the  Pauline 
sense,  but  in  the  sense  of  the  church  at  large,  which  believed  that  the  gift  of 
the  Spirit  was  bestowed  upon  every  disciple  for  his  strengthening  and  enlight- 
enment (cf.  x.  29).    And  so  the  statement  in  ii.  11  is  to  be  understood  to  mean 
only  that  salvation  is  a  gift  of  God,  and  not  the  mere  natural  product  of 
man's  labors.    With  this  the  entire  church  was  in  agreement. 

8  Cf.  1  Cor.  xi.  25;  2  Cor.  iii.  6,  14.  Christ's  reference  to  the  covenant  at 
the  time  of  the  Last  Supper  undoubtedly  influenced  both  Paul  and  the  author 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 


THE   CHRISTIANITY   OF   THE   CHURCH   AT  LARGE      475 

promise  of  forgiveness  and  assistance.1  It  does  not  differ 
in  principle,  therefore,  from  the  old  covenant.  That  in- 
volved the  observance  of  the  divine  law,  and  sacrificial 
institutions  were  provided  with  a  view  to  the  forgiveness 
of  transgressions.  Thus  though  the  author  agrees  with 
Paul  that  the  old  covenant  has  been  abrogated  in  favor  of 
the  new,  he  represents  its  abrogation  as  due  not  to  the 
fact  that  it  is  radically  different  from  the  latter,  but  that 
it  is  imperfect  and  only  a  shadow  of  that  which  is  per- 
fectty  realized  in  the  new  covenant.  Under  the  old  dis- 
pensation men  were  saved,  just  as  under  the  new,  by 
faithful  and  continued  obedience  and  by  patient  endurance 
unto  the  end.2 

The  controlling  place  which  the  conception  of  a  new 
covenant  had  in  the  author's  mind  explains  his  emphasis 
upon  the  work  of  Christ,  in  which  he  goes  beyond  all  his 
predecessors  and  contemporaries  except  Paul.  As  the  old 
covenant  had  been  sealed  with  a  sacrifice,  the  new  cove- 
nant must  be  also,3  and  so  a  real  significance  is  given  to 
the  death  of  Christ,  — a  significance  to  which  Jesus  him- 
self had  referred,  but  which  seems  not  to  have  been  gener- 
ally recognized  by  his  early  followers.  But  the  death  of 
Christ,  in  order  to  seal  the  new  covenant,  was  not  the 
whole  of  his  work ;  it  was,  in  fact,  but  a  minor  part  of  it. 
It  was  in  the  carrying  out  of  the  covenant  that  he  was 
chiefly  concerned.  It  was  through  him  that  it  was  re- 
vealed to  men,  and  thus  the  conditions  of  enjoying  its 
blessings  made  known.4  It  was  by  him,  moreover,  that 
an  example  of  obedience  was  set,  which  served  both  to 
instruct  them  and  to  inspire  them  to  the  fulfilment  of 
those  conditions,5  and  that  a  victory  was  gained  over 
Satan  which  was  calculated  to  free  them  from  that  fear 
of  death  which  had  always  kept  them  in  bondage  to  the 

1  Cf.,  e.g.,  Heb.  viii.  8  sq.,  x.  16  sq. ;  also  i.  14,  iv.  16,  xiii.  21,  etc. 

2  The  author  had  evidently  reflected  deeply  upon  the  relation  of  Judaism 
and  Christianity,  and  it  is  interesting  to  notice  how  his  conception  of  Chris- 
tianity as  a  law  led  him  to  a  conclusion  so  widely  different  from  that  of  Paul. 

3  Heb.  x.  29,  xiii.  20.  4  Heb.  i.  2,  ii.  3,  viii.  6,  etc. 

5  Especial  stress  is  laid  throughout  the  epistle  upon  the  example  of  Christ. 
Such  emphasis  was  quite  natural  in  view  of  the  practical  end  which  the  author 
had  in  mind. 


476  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

devil.1  But  it  was  through  him  above  all  that  the  for- 
giveness and  assistance  needed  by  men  and  promised  by 
God  were  actually  secured,  and  thus  the  covenant  com- 
pletely fulfilled.  It  was  by  the  continued  exercise  of  his 
high-priestly  office  in  heaven  that  Christ  accomplished 
this  part  of  his  work,  and  it  is  accordingly  upon  that 
office  that  the  author  lays  chief  emphasis.  Everything 
else  that  Christ  has  done  is  subordinated  to  this  his 
supreme  and  permanent  function.2  In  the  exercise  of  his 
high-priestly  office,  he  offered  himself  upon  the  heavenly 
altar  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  perfect  and  of  lasting  efficacy;8 
and  he  now  devotes  himself  to  the  sanctification  of  those 
that  are  truly  his,  standing  surety  for  their  ultimate  per- 
fection, and  at  the  same  time,  conscious  of  their  need, 
interceding  in  their  behalf,  and  securing  from  God  con- 
tinued forgiveness  and  the  bestowal  of  grace  to  assist 
them  in  their  efforts.4  It  is  noteworthy  that  our  author 
does  not  represent  the  priestly  work  of  Christ  as  con- 
sisting merely  in  the  offering  of  the  sacrifice,  but  as 
including  also  the  sanctification  of  his  followers,  and 
continued  intercession  with  God  for  forgiveness  and 
grace.  It  is  all  the  more  noteworthy  because  the  priestly 
office  as  exercised  among  the  Jews  offered  no  parallel  to 
this  service,  and  the  idea  therefore  was  not  simply  a 
result  of  the  comparison  between  Christ  and  the  Jewish 
high  priest.  It  should  be  observed,  moreover,  that  it  is 
upon  this  continued  action  of  Christ  that  the  author  lays 
chief  stress.  What  the  Saviour  is  now  doing  for  his  fol- 
lowers in  heaven  is  his  supreme  work.  To  him  they  owe 
not  simply  the  forgiveness  of  their  sins,  but  purification 
from  them,  which  alone  makes  salvation  possible.6  To 

i  Heb.  ii.  14  sq.  2  Cf.  Heb.  viii.  1  sq. 

»  Heb.  vii.  27,  ix.  12  sq.,  26,  x.  10  sq.,  18.  Christ  offered  his  sacrifice,  not 
upon  the  cross,  but  at  the  heavenly  altar.  He  did  not  begin  the  exercise 
of  his  priestly  work  upon  the  cross,  — there  he  was  only  the  victim,  — but 
when  he  entered  heaven  and  presented  his  sacrifice  to  God.  See  Briggs: 
Messiah  of  the  Apostles,  p.  263  sq. 

4  Heb.  ii.  11,  14  sq.,  18,  iv.  16,  vi.  17  sq.,  vii.  25,  ix.  14,  x.  12  sq.,  21,  xii.  2, 
10,  15,  xiii.  20  sq. 

6  Heb.  xii.  14.  The  blood  of  Christ  is  thus  represented  as  fulfilling  a  double 
purpose.  It  acts  not  simply  as  sacrificial  but  also  as  cleansing  blood  (cf.  ix. 
13  sq.,  x.  22,  29). 


THE   CHRISTIANITY   OF   THE   CHURCH   AT   LARGE      477 

him  they  owe  also  the  assistance  which  is  rendered  them 
by  the  Spirit  of  grace ; l  and  to  him  they  owe  final  perfec- 
tion.2 

It  was  this  controlling  interest  in  the  work  which 
the  Lord  is  doing  for  his  followers  in  heaven,  that  led 
the  author  to  emphasize  his  life  on  earth  and  his  genu- 
inely human  experiences,  which  were  such  as  to  enable 
him  to  understand  man's  needs  and  the  difficulties  that 
lie  in  the  Avay  of  the  perfect  fulfilment  of  God's  law. 
Jesus  was  thus  fitted,  as  he  could  not  otherwise  have 
been,  to  be  our  high  priest,  to  offer  a  sacrifice  for  us,  and 
to  intercede  with  God  on  our  behalf. 

It  was  thus  the  humanity,  and  not  the  divinity  or  pre- 
existence  of  Christ,  which  chiefly  concerned  our  author. 
His  references  to  the  pre-existence  and  to  the  divine 
character  of  the  Son,  in  the  beginning  of  his  epistle, 
were  due  solely  to  his  desire  to  emphasize  the  superla- 
tive worth  and  dignity  of  the  new  covenant  of  which 
Christ  was  the  mediator.  The  Messiah's  pre-existence 
had  nothing  to  do  with  his  work  as  Redeemer,  as  our 
author  conceived  that  work,  and  his  belief  in  it  therefore 
had  a  very  different  root  from  Paul's.  The  idea  resem- 
bles that  which  finds  expression  in  Philippians  and 
Colossians,  and  it  is  possible  that  he  learned  it  from 
Paul.  But  the  truth  is  that  the  same  idea  was  widely 
current  in  the  Hellenistic  Judaism  of  the  day,  especially 
in  Phi  Ionic  circles,  and  it  would  be  surprising  if  a  writer 
who  owed  so  much  to  Philo  had  failed  to  make  use  of  his 
conception  of  the  Logos,  especially  when  it  was  so  admi- 
rably adapted  to  explain  the  relation  of  the  old  and  the 
new  covenant,  and  to  show  the  superiority  of  the  latter 

1  Heb.  vi.  4,  x.  29. 

2  Heb.  x.  14,  xii.  2.    The  exercise  of  his  high-priestly  office  by  Christ  does 
not  mean,  as  our  author  conceives  it,  that  God  was  not  inclined  to  fulfil  the 
promises  which  he  had  himself  made  under  the  new  covenant,  and  needed  to 
be  induced  by  Christ  to  do  so.    For  Christ  did  not  take  the  priestly  office 
upon  himself,  but  was  appointed  thereto  by  God  (v.  4  sq.) ;  and  all  the  work 
that  he  did  constituted  a  part  of  God's  own  arrangement  for  the  fulfilment  of 
his  covenant.     It  was  due  to  God's  grace  that  Christ  died  (ii.  9),  and  it  was 
by  God  that  he  was  perfected  (ii.  10),  and  thus  enabled  to  accomplish  the 
work  entrusted  to  him.    God  himself  is  thought  of  throughout  as  the  ultimate 
author  of  salvation,  just  as  he  is  by  all  the  writers  of  the  period. 


478  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

to  the  former.  And  indeed  the  fact  should  not  be  over- 
looked that  the  "Son  of  God"  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  occupies  the  same  position  as  the  Logos  in 
Philo,1  and  almost  identical  language  is  frequently  used 
in  speaking  of  him.  Thus  he  is  the  "  first-born  " ; 2  he  is 
above  the  angels;  he  is  the  "image  of  God,"3  and  his 
representative;  he  is  the  agent  in  creation,  and  he  sus- 
tains the  world;  he  is  the  great  high  priest  who  is  with- 
out sin  and  intercedes  for  sinners;  he  is  the  mediator 
between  God  and  man.  Philo,  moreover,  sees  in  Mel- 
chizedek  a  type  of  the  Logos,  just  as  the  author  of  our 
epistle  makes  him  a  type  of  the  "Son  of  God,"  and  the 
two  interpret  the  name  "  Melchizedek  "  in  the  same  way 
and  almost  in  the  same  words.4  In  the  light  of  such  re- 
semblances as  these,  and  of  the  unmistakable  Philonism 
of  the  epistle  in  many  other  respects,5  there  can  be  little 
doubt  that  it  was  not  solely  to  the  influence  of  Paul  but 

1  Philo  calls  the  Logos  also  the  "  Son  of  God  "  and  the  omission  of  the  for- 
mer designation  by  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  no  argument 
against  his  dependence  on  Philo ;  for  he  may  well  have  preferred  to  use  the 
phrase  "  Son  of  God,"  which  had  been  applied  to  Christ  from  the  beginning, 
and  which  expressed  the  idea  with  equal  clearness,  rather  than  the  philo- 
sophical term  "  Logos." 

2  6  trpwrttroKos.     Philo  calls  the  Logos  the  irpurbyovos  ui6y. 

8  The  same  terms,  dira\jya<rfj.a  and  xapo-KT^p,  are  found  in  both  Philo  and 
Hebrews. 

4  Ba<rt\ei)s  clp^vtjy  ;  SaX^/x. 

6  In  addition  to  the  resemblances  referred  to  in  the  text,  we  find  in  Philo 
the  statement  that  appears  in  Hebrews,  that  the  sacrifices  are  of  value  not 
because  they  take  away  sins,  which  they  do  not,  but  because  they  furnish  a 
reminder  of  them  (Heb.  x.  3).  We  find  also  in  Hebrews  and  in  Philo  the  same 
cosmological  conceptions  and  the  same  idea  of  the  visible  material  world  as 
the  shadow  and  symbol  of  the  invisible  spiritual  world ;  so,  also,  the  same 
notion  that  created  things  are  perishable,  and  that  only  divine  things  are 
eternal.  Biblical  characters  are  described  in  a  similar  way,  and  some  of  them 
in  almost  identical  words.  The  author  of  Hebrews  employs  also  the  genuine 
Philonic  mode  of  Scripture  exegesis.  It  is  not  merely  that  he  uses  the  alle- 
gorical method,  for  that  method  was  current  in  the  Rabbinic  schools  of  Pales- 
tine, but  that  he  uses  it  as  Philo  does.  It  is  not  that  he  treats  words  and 
letters  and  numbers  as  mysterious  symbols,  which  may  be  juggled  with  in 
every  conceivable  way,  but  that  he  employs  an  historic  character  or  institu- 
tion or  event  as  the  symbol  of  profound  spiritual  realities  from  which  may  be 
drawn  lessons  of  the  deepest  spiritual  significance.  So  the  author's  allegorical 
treatment  of  Melchizedek  is  genuinely  Philonic  in  all  respects.  Upon  the 
Philonism  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  see,  especially,  Siegfried:  Philo  von 
Alexandrien,  S.  321  sq.,  where  the  references  to  Philo's  works  are  given  with 
great  fulness ;  also,  Pfleiderer :  Das  Urchristenthum,  S.  629  sq. ;  and  Menegoz : 
La  Theologie  de  VEpitre  aux  Hebreux,  p.  197  sq. 


THE  CHRISTIANITY   OF  THE  CHURCH   AT  LARGE      479 

also  in  part  at  least  to  the  influence  of  Philo  that  our  author 
owed,  directly  or  indirectly,  the  conception  of  Christ's 
pre-existence  which  he  turned  to  such  practical  account. 
At  any  rate,  the  conception  was  not  due  to  the  same 
interest  as  Paul's,  and  hence,  though  it  is  similar  in 
Hebrews  and  in  Paul's  later  epistles,  it  is  a  mark  rather 
of  the  difference  than  of  the  oneness  between  them. 

And  yet  though  the  contrast  between  Paul  and  the 
author  of  Hebrews  is  very  marked,  as  appears  clearly 
enough  from  what  has  been  already  said,  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  the  latter  felt  the  influence  of  the  great  apos- 
tle's teaching,  at  least  at  some  points.  The  most  decisive 
indication  of  Pauline  influence  is  to  be  found  in  his 
connection  of  the  remission  of  sins  and  purification  from 
them  with  the  death  of  Christ.  It  is  true  that  his  idea 
of  the  way  in  which  Christ's  death  accomplishes  such 
remission  and  purification  is  different  from  Paul's,  but 
there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  idea  itself  was  due  to 
Paul's  suggestion.  Of  the  connection  referred  to,  we 
have  almost  no  trace  in  the  thinking  of  those  who  pre- 
ceded Paul.  There  is  no  indication,  indeed,  that  they 
reflected  at  all  seriously  upon  the  significance  of  Christ's 
death.  It  was  Paul  who  first  gave  his  death  a  prominent 
place  and  used  it  as  a  constructive  principle  in  the  formu- 
lation of  Christian  truth.  It  is  a  fact  of  no  little  historic 
significance  that  the  author  of  such  an  epistle  as  we  have 
been  dealing  with  followed  Paul  in  this  respect,  while  at 
the  same  time  he  interpreted  the  event  in  a  very  different 
way. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  also  noteworthy,  because 
it  represents  an  attempt  to  give  to  all  Christ's  activities 
a  real  value.  In  this  respect,  too,  the  author  resembled 
Paul  more  nearly  than  any  one  else.  But  again  he 
departed  from  him  in  laying  the  emphasis  upon  other 
points,  and  in  interpreting  Christ's  entire  career  in 
another  way.  Thus  he  found  a  value  in  the  earthly  life 
and  experiences  of  Christ  which  Paul  did  not,  and  he 
pictured  his  present  activity  in  a  form  quite  unfamiliar 
to  the  latter,  while  of  his  resurrection,  which  to  Paul  was 


480  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE 

the  cardinal  fact  in  the  whole  process  of  redemption*  he 
had  nothing  particular  to  say.1 

It  may  be  said  in  general,  then,  that  the  author  of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  represents  a  development  of 
the  common  conception  of  Christianity  which  prevailed 
among  the  primitive  Christians  of  the  world  at  large,  —  a 
development  determined  in  part  by  the  influence  of  Paul, 
which  he  felt  more  than  most  of  his  predecessors  and  con- 
temporaries ;  in  part  by  the  influence  of  Philo,  with  whose 
teaching  he  had  been  familiar  before  his  conversion.  It 
is  possible  that  the  author  was  one  of  Paul's  own  con- 
verts, but  his  controlling  conception  of  Christianity  is 
so  different  from  Paul's,  that  it  is  much  more  probable 
that  he  felt  the  latter's  influence  only  after  that  concep- 
tion was  already  formed,  and  that  he  was  never  intimately 
associated  with  him.  Who  he  was,  we  do  not  know;  but 
his  Philonism  suggests  that  he  may  have  been  an  Alex- 
andrian Jew,  possibly  even  a  disciple  of  Philo.2  At 

1  The  resurrection  of  Christ  is  mentioned  only  once  (xiii.  20),  and  then 
is  not  connected  with  the  work  of  redemption.    Of  course  it  is  constantly 
presupposed  by  the  author,  for  it  is  involved  in  Christ's  continued  activity  in 
heaven,  of  which  he  makes  so  much.    But  the  lack  of  explicit  reference  to  it 
reveals  the  contrast  between  his  view  and  Paul's. 

2  The  old  tradition  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  written  by  Paul 
was  long  ago  abandoned  by  scholars.    The  epistle  does  not  claim  to  have 
been  written  by  him,  and  only  a  widespread  and  utter  lack  of  appreciation  of 
the  characteristic  features  of  Paul's  thought  and  style  could  have  made  pos- 
sible its  ascription  to  him.    The  idea  that  it  was  his  work  appears  first  in 
Alexandria,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century,  and  seems  to  have 
no  tradition  back  of  it.    Even  then  Clement,  who  defends  its  Pauline  origin, 
recognizing  the  disparity  in  style  between  it  and  other  epistles  of  Paul,  is 
forced  to  assume  a  Hebrew  original,  translated  into  Greek  by  Luke.    In  the 
Western  Church  the  epistle  was  not  connected  with  the  name  of  Paul  until  the 
fourth  century,  but  from  the  fifth  century  on  it^was  accepted  universally  both 
in  East  and  West  as  a  genuine  work  of  Paul's,  and  its  authorship  was  not  again 
questioned  until  the  Reformation.    See  my  edition  of  Eusebius,  Bk.  III.  chap. 
3,  note  17. 

The  only  really  ancient  tradition  that  we  have  links  the  epistle  with  the 
name  of  Barnabas  (Tertullian :  De  Pudicitia,  20) .  It  is  possible  that  Barnabas 
was  its  author,  but  not  at  all  probable.  He  was  a  member  of  the  church  of 
Jerusalem  in  its  earliest  days,  and  he  could  hardly  have  reckoned  himself  as 
belonging  to  the  second  generation  of  Christians,  as  our  author  does  in  ii.  !>. 
He  was,  moreover,  a  Levite,  according  to  Acts  iv.  .".(I,  ami  lie  would  not  be  likely 
to  represent  the  high  priest  as  offering  sacrifices  daily  I'or  his  own  sins  and  tin- 
sins  of  the  people,  as  our  author  does,  in  agreement  with  Philo.  It  is  also  im- 
probable, though  of  course  not  impossible,  that  Harnabas  had  had  the  Alexan- 
drian education  which  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  had  evidently 


THE   CHRISTIANITY   OF   THE   CHURCH    AT   LARGE      481 

any  rate,  in  reading  his  epistle  we  are  in  a  genuinely 
Philonic  atmosphere.  Only  a  man  who  had  been  thor- 
oughly trained  in  Philonic  modes  of  thought,  who  had 
studied  the  Old  Testament  in  the  light  of  Philo's  treat- 
ment of  it,  and  who  was  so  thoroughly  under  the  influence 
of  his  thinking  that  he  instinctively  interpreted  even  the 
Gospel  itself  in  the  light  of  it,  could  have  written  the 
epistle.  The  author's  relation  to  Philo  is  significant 
from  a  literary  as  well  as  from  a  theological  point  of 
view.  He  is  the  first  Christian  known  to  us  to  make 
distinct  and  extended  use  of  that  master's  peculiar  theo- 
logical conceptions  and  exegetical  methods,  but  he  was 
by  no  means  the  last.  In  fact,  he  was  the  progenitor  of 
a  long  line  of  Christian  theologians,  through  whom  the 
thinking  of  the  great  Jewish  philosopher  influenced  the 
thinking  of  the  church  at  large  for  many  centuries. 

Though  religiously  and  in  vigor  and  force  of  personal- 
ity the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  in- 
ferior to  the  great  apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  he  was  without 
doubt  the  finest  and  most  cultured  literary  genius  of  the 
primitive  church.  His  thought  moves  throughout  on  an 
elevated  plane,  and  his  language  is  uniformly  worthy 
of  his  thought,  in  certain  passages  becoming  genuinely 
eloquent  and  even  sublime.  The  fact  that  a  writer  of 
such  rare  power  and  grace  should  have  left  us  only  a 
single  monument  of  his  genius,  and  that  a  mere  letter, 
written  for  a  definite  practical  purpose,  and  that  his  name 
should  have  been  entirely  forgotten  within  less  .than  a 
century  after  his  death,  serves  to  remind  us  in  a  very 
forcible  way  of  the  limitations  of  our  knowledge  respect- 
ing the  early  days  of  Christianity.  It  would  seem  as  if 

enjoyed.  In  my  edition  of  Eusebius  I  defended  the  view  that  Barnabas  wrote 
the  epistle,  but  I  have  been  led  to. modify  the  opinion  there  expressed. 

The  name  of  Apollos  was  suggested  by  Luther  and  has  been  adopted  by 
many  modern  scholars.  What  we  know  of  the  character  and  training  of 
Apollos  agrees  with  what  we  can  gather  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
concerning  the  character  and  training  of  its  author.  But  there  may  have 
been  many  other  Christians  who  had  enjoyed  the  same  kind  of  training  and 
who  were  as  eloquent  and  as  mighty  in  the  Scriptures  as  Apollos,  and  since 
no  tradition  connects  the  epistle  with  his  name,  and  there  are  no  personal 
references  which  can  furnish  a  clue  to  the  identity  of  the  author,  we  shall  do 
well  to  content  ourselves  with  a  non  liquet. 


482  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

in  a  society  so  small  in  numbers,  and  for  the  most  part 
so  uncultured  as  the  early  church,  such  a  man  must  have 
made  a  reputation  for  himself  that  could  never  be  for- 
gotten, and  that  his  writings  (for  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  can  hardly  have  been  the  only  thing  he  ever 
wrote)  must  have  been  diligently  collected  and  carefully 
preserved.  But  in  point  of  fact  absolutely  nothing  was 
known  about  him  two  generations  after  his  death.  It  is 
evident  that  there  may  have  been  other  geniuses  in  the 
primitive  church  of  whom  we  know  nothing,  and  that 
there  may  have  been  many  things  written  which  have  left 
no  trace.  The  apostles  were  not  the  only  thinkers  and 
writers  in  those  early  days,  and  with  the  exception  of 
Paul  probably  not  the  greatest,  but  they  have  crowded  all 
their  fellow-Christians  into  obscurity.  In  that  age  names 
meant  nothing;  literature  meant  still  less.  The  Spirit 
of  God  speaking  in  and  through  believers  was  everything. 
Had  it  not  been  for  the  crisis  through  which  the  church 
passed  in  the  second  century,  subsequent  generations 
would  have  retained  no  knowledge  either  of  the  men  or 
the  writings  of  its  primitive  days.  As  it  was,  they  re- 
tained for  the  most  part  only  what  was  supposed  to  be 
apostolic,  and  only  because  it  was.  And  all  those  who 
could  not  lay  claim  to  the  dignity  of  apostles  passed  into 
oblivion,  and  the  few  brief  and  scattered  products  of 
their  pens  which  have  survived  the  ravages  of  time  owe 
their  preservation  to  the  fact  that  they  were  fortunate 
enough  to  lose  their  identity  and  to  get  themselves 
attached  in  one  way  or  another  to  some  apostolic  name. 

3.  THE  CHRISTIANITY  OF  THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER 

Much  more  closely  akin  to  Paul  than  the  writer  whom 
we  have  been  considering  was  the  author  of  the  work 
known  as  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter.1  That  work  was 
called  forth  by  the  trials  which  were  befalling  the  Chris- 
tians of  the  five  provinces  named  in  the  salutation, 
—  Pontus,  Galatia,  Cappadocia,  Asia,  and  Bithynia,  — 

1  Upon  the  authorship  of  the  epistle,  see  below,  p.  593  sq. 


THE    CHRISTIANITY    OF   THE   CHURCH   AT   LARGE      483 

comprising  the  whole  of  Asia  Minor  north  of  Mount 
Taurus.  It  seems  that  they  were  suffering  persecu- 
tion,1 and  it  was  because  of  it  that  the  author  wrote  them 
a  letter  of  exhortation.2  His  purpose  was  a  double  one: 
on  the  one  hand,  to  encourage  and  inspire  them  in  the 
face  of  the  severe  trials  they  were  called  upon  to  undergo ; 
and  on  the  other  hand,  to  urge  them  to  conduct  them- 
selves in  such  a  way  as  to  give  their  enemies  no  ground 
for  their  hostility. 

After  the  customary  salutation,  the  author  begins, 
much  after  the  style  of  Paul,  with  an  expression  of 
his  gratitude  to  God  that  his  readers  have  been  born 
again  unto  a  living  hope,  and  unto  a  salvation  which 
is  surely  to  be  enjoyed  by  them,  even  though  for  a 
little  while  their  faith  is  tried  by  suffering.3  This 
introductory  passage,  in  which  the  occasion  that  called 
forth  the  epistle  is  clearly  indicated,4  is  followed  by  an 
exhortation  to  those  addressed  to  live  worthily  of  the 
promised  salvation,  in  holiness,  in  brotherly  love,  in 
sincerity,  and  in  vital  union  with  Christ;  for  they  are 
God's  elect  people,  chosen  to  show  forth  in  their  own 
lives  the  virtues  of  him  who  called  them  out  of  darkness 
into  the  light.5  After  this  general  exhortation,  the  writer 
turns  his  attention  to  the  particular  circumstances  in 
which  his  readers  are  placed  and  points  out  the  especial 
importance  of  the  conduct  which  he  has  been  urging  upon 
them,  in  order  that  their  heathen  enemies  may  have  no 
just  ground  for  attacking  them,  but  may,  on  the  con- 
trary, be  led  by  their  good  works  to  glorify  God.6  With 
this  end  in  view  he  takes  up  the  matter  of  conduct  in 
detail,  urging  his  readers  to  be  loyal  citizens,7  and  those 
that  are  servants  to  be  in  subjection  to  their  masters, 
even  though  they  are  treated  cruelly  and  unjustly  by 
them ;  for  Christ  left  them  an  example  that  they  should 
bear  patiently  even  undeserved  evils.8  He  then  exhorts 
wives  to  be  obedient  to  their  husbands,  husbands  to 

1 1  Pet.  i.  6,  iii.  14  sq.,  iv.  1,  12  sq.,  16,  v.  8  sq.  «  1  Pet.  ii.  11  sq. 

2  1  Pet.  v.  12.  *  1  Pet.  i.  6.  7  1  Pet.  ii.  13-17. 

3  1  Pet.  i.  3-12.  6  1  Pet.  i.  13-ii.lO.  8 1  Pet.  ii.  18-25. 


484  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

honor  their  wives,  and  all  to  be  kind,  tender-hearted,  and 
humble-minded.1  If  they  live  thus,  no  one  will  harm 
them,  and  those  who  revile  *them  will  be  put  to  shame. 
But  even  if  they  still  have  to  bear  the  attacks  of  their 
enemies,  let  them  realize  that  it  is  better  to  be  attacked 
for  well-doing  than  for  evil-doing,  for  even  Christ  suf- 
fered, though  he  was  righteous,  and  his  passion  redounded 
both  to  his  own  good  and  to  the  good  of  others ;  for,  hav- 
ing been  put  to  death  in  the  flesh,  he  was  raised  and 
glorified  in  the  spirit.  By  his  death,  moreover,  he  saved 
not  simply  his  own  followers,  but  also  men  of  earlier 
generations  who  had  been  disobedient  to  God;  for  he 
preached  the  Gospel  to  the  dead  as  well  as  to  the  living.2 
Inasmuch,  then,  as  Christ  thus  suffered  in  the  flesh,  it 
behooves  those  to  whom  the  epistle  is  addressed  to  arm 
themselves  with  the  same  conviction  that  he  had,  —  the 
conviction  that  he  that  has  suffered  in  the  flesh  has  been 
freed  from  sin,  —  in  order  that  they  may  devote  the  re- 
mainder of  their  lives  not  to  the  desires  of  the  flesh,  but 
to  the  will  of  God.3  The  need  of  such  living  is  espe- 
cially urgent  now,  for  the  end  of  all  things  is  at  hand. 
They  ought  therefore  to  be  sober  and  prayerful,  and 
above  all  to  love  one  another,  overlooking  each  other's 
faults,  freely  dispensing  hospitality,  ministering  accord- 
ing to  the  gift  of  God  imparted  to  each,  that  in  all  things 
God  may  be  glorified.4  The  author  then  turns  once  more 
to  the  persecution,  and  begs  his  readers  to  rejoice  in  it; 
for  if  they  are  partakers  of  Christ's  sufferings,  they  will 
have  reason  to  rejoice  when  the  time  comes  for  the  revela- 
tion of  his  glory ;  if  they  suffer,  that  is,  not  for  evil  deeds, 
but  for  the  name  of  Christ.5  In  a  closing  passage  he 
urges  the  older  men  to  discharge  their  duties  faithfully, 
the  younger  to  be  subject  to  the  older,  and  all  to  be  hum- 
ble, sober,  watchful,  and  steadfast  in  the  face  of  persecu- 
tion, knowing  that  the  same  trials .  beset  their  brethren 
everywhere,  and  that  after  they  have  suffered  a  little 
while  they  will  be  perfected  by  God,  who  called  them 

1 1  Pet.  iii.  1-12.  2  i  pet.  m.  13-22.  «  1  Pet.  iv.  1-6. 

4  1  Pet.  iv.  7-11.  6  1  Pet.  iv.  12-18. 


THE  CHRISTIANITY   OF   THE  CHURCH   AT  LARGE      48.5 

unto  his  eternal  glory  in  Christ.1  After  a  reference  to 
Silvanus,  the  writer's  amanuensis,  and  a  final  exhortation 
to  steadfastness,  the  letter  closes  in  the  customary  way 
with  greetings  and  a  benediction. 

It  is  clear  enough,  in  the  light  of  this  outline,  that  the 
author's  purpose  in  writing  was  exclusively  practical. 
There  is  no  sign  that  he  had  any  theological  aim,  or 
that  he  was  concerned  to  impart  instruction  of  any  kind 
to  his  readers  except  in  so  far  as  it  was  needed  for  their 
encouragement  and  inspiration  in  the  face  of  persecution. 
What  he  says  about  election,  about  Christ's  sufferings, 
about  his  preaching  to  the  dead,  about  man's  redemption, 
about  the  impending  judgment  and  the  approaching  reve- 
lation of  Christ's  glory,  all  has  direct  and  immediate 
application  to  the  conduct  of  those  to  whom  he  writes, 
and  is  referred  to  with  no  other  aim.  It  is  therefore  a 
great  mistake  to  see  in  1  Peter,  as  some  have  done,  a 
presentation  of  the  theology  of  Peter,  either  in  opposition 
to  or  in  confirmation  of  the  theology  of  Paul,  or  an  effort 
on  the  part  of  a  post-apostolic  writer  to  reconcile  the 
Petrine  and  Pauline  types  of  thought,  or  to  give  expres- 
sion to  that  form  of  theology  which  had  developed  after 
their  death  upon  the  basis  of  the  teaching  of  either  or  of 
both. 

And  yet  in  spite  of  the  distinctly  practical  character 
of  the  epistle  there  can  be  no  mistaking  the  fact  that  the 
author  was  a  Paulinist,  that  his  Gospel  was  the  Gospel 
of  Paul,  and  that  his  mind  was  saturated  with  Paul's 
ideas.  There  is  no  other  early  Christian  document,  by 
another  hand  than  Paul's,  whose  Paulinism  can  begin  to 
compare  with  that  of  1  Peter.  The  author,  whoever  he 
was,  understood  the  great  apostle  to  the  Gentiles  far 
better  than  any  one  else  known  to  us.  'In  support  of  this 
assertion,  attention  may  be  called  to  such  passages  as 
the  following:  "Having  been  begotten  again,  not  of  cor- 
ruptible seed,  but  of  incorruptible."2  "He  that  hath 
suffered  in  the  flesh  hath  ceased  from  sin."3  "As  free, 
and  not  using  your  freedom  for  a  cloak  of  wickedness, 
1 1  Pet.  v.  1-11.  2 1  Pet.  i.  23.  8  1  Pet.  iv.  1, 


486  .        THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

but  as  bondservants  of  God."1  "Because  Christ  also 
suffered  for  sins  once,  the  righteous  for  the  unrighteous, 
that  he  might  bring  us  to  God;  being  put  to  death  in  the 
flesh,  but  quickened  in  the  spirit."2  "For  unto  this  end 
was  the  Gospel  preached  even  to  the  dead,  that  they 
might  be  judged  according  to  men  in  the  flesh,  but  live 
according  to  God  in  the  spirit."8  And  most  striking  of 
all:  "Who  his  own  self  carried  our  sins  in  his  body  up  to 
the  tree,  that  we,  having  died  unto  sins,  might  live  unto 
righteousness."4  It  is  true  that  there  is  no  discussion  in 
the  epistle  of  the  Christian's  relation  to  the  law,5  that 
there  is  nothing  said  about  justification  by  faith  instead 
of  works,  and  that  the  polemic  utterances  of  Galatians, 
Corinthians,  Romans,  and  Philippians  are  wanting.  But 
the  essence  of  the  Pauline  Gospel  is  there,  and  the  omis- 
sions referred  to  do  not  indicate  a  failure  on  the  author's 
part  to  comprehend  Paul,  or  a  lack  of  sympathy  with  his 
teachings,  but  simply  show  that  he  was  writing  under 
different  conditions  and  with  a  different  purpose. 

And  yet  it  is  evident  that  though  at  bottom  a  genuine 
Paulinist  in  his  conception  of  Christianity,  he  had  felt  to 
some  extent  the  influence  of  the  common  views  which 
have  been  already  described  and  which  prevailed  so 
widely  in  his  day.  Thus  there  is  an  apparent  tendency 
to  give  to  the  ethical  side  of  the  Christian  life  an  inde- 
pendent value  which  it  lacks  in  Paul,  who  always  lays 
chief  stress  upon  its  religious  basis.  There  is  a  ten- 
dency also  to  emphasize  the  future,  and  to  treat  faith  as 
almost  synonymous  with  the  hope  which  looks  forward 
to  the  glory  of  Christ  and  his  saints,  and  thus  furnishes 
an  incentive  to  Christian  living,  instead  of  making  it  as 
clearly  and  distinctly  as  it  is  in  Paul  the  mystical  one- 
ness of  the  believer  with  Christ.  And  so  baptism  in  the 
same  way  takes  on  the  aspect  rather  of  a  pledge  of  right 
conduct  than  of  a  bond  between  the  Christian  and  his 

i  1  Pet.  ii.  16.  2  1  Pet.  iii.  18.  8  1  Pet.  iv.  6. 

4  1  Pet.  ii.  24.  With  these  passages  compare,  also,  iii.  15,  16,  21,  iv.  10,  13, 
14,  v.  10, 14. 

6  But  the  Christian's  freedom  is  assumed  in  genuine  Pauline  fashion  in 
ii.  16. 


THE   CHRISTIANITY   OF   THE   CHURCH   AT   LARGE      487 

Lord.  Similarly,  the  sufferings  of  Christ  are  looked 
upon  not  simply  in  their  redemptive  value,  as  effecting 
the  death  of  the  flesh,  and  thus  the  believer's  release 
from  its  bondage,  but  also  in  their  moral  value  as  an 
example  for  the  Christian.  These  differences  are  not 
marked  enough  to  warrant  us  in  asserting  that  the  author 
was  in  fundamental  disagreement  with  Paul,  but  they  illus- 
trate the  natural  tendency,  in  dealing  with  the  duties  and 
temptations  of  the  Christian  life,  to  view  that  life  chiefly 
in  its  ethical  aspect,  and  thus  to  approach  the  common 
conception  of  the  church  at  large ;  and  they  indicate  the 
direction  which  even  Paul's  truest  followers  might  take 
in  addressing  themselves  in  a  practical  way  to  the  condi- 
tions which  faced  the  author  of  1  Peter.  There  are  slight 
traces  of  the  same  tendency  even  in  one  of  Paul's  own 
epistles,1  and  it  is  therefore  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  it 
should  be  apparent  in  the  work  of  another,  who  naturally 
felt  more  than  he  did  the  influence  of  alien  conceptions. 

In  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  we  see  the  common  con- 
ception of  Christianity  which  prevailed  in  the  church  at 
large  developing  under  the  influence  of  Pauline  ideas;  in 
the  First  Epistle  of  Peter  Paulinism  developing  under 
the  influence  of  that  common  conception.  Elements  from 
two  independent  views  appear  in  both,  but  in  the  one 
case  the  conception  of  the  church  at  large,  and  in  the 
other  that  of  Paul,  is  the  controlling  factor,  and  the  results 
accordingly  are  widely  different.  The  First  Epistle  of 
Peter  bears  testimony  to  the  survival  after  Paul's  death 
of  his  conception  of  Christianity  in  a  somewhat  modified, 
but  still  comparatively  pure  form.  •  But  in  this  respect 
it  stands  alone  among  extant  documents.  In  no  other 
sources  do  we  find  his  characteristic  views  reproduced 
with  equal  fidelity. 

4.   THE  CHRISTIANITY  OF  THE  JOHANNINE  WRITINGS 

And  yet  some  of  Paul's  views  made  their  influence  felt 
long  after  his  death  in  the  churches  of  Asia  Minor,  as  is 
evidenced  especially  by  the  Johannine  writings  and  by 

1  Cf.  Eph.  v.  1  sq.,  vi.  16. 


488  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

the  epistles  of  Ignatius  of  Antioch;  and  in  combination 
with  other  independent  and  even  inconsistent  elements, 
they  had  a  long  and  fruitful  history  in  the  Christian 
church.  The  Johannine  writings  present  a  problem  of 
peculiar  difficulty  to  one  who  attempts  to  trace  the 
development  of  thought  during  the  early  days  of  Chris- 
tianity.1 Both  in  the  Gospel  and  in  the  First  Epistle 
of  John  we  find  two  striking  points  of  resemblance  with 
the  teaching  of  Paul.  On  the  one  hand  the  pre-existence 
of  Christ  is  strongly  emphasized,2  and  on  the  other  hand 
the  Christian  life  is  pictured  as  the  divine  life  in  man, 
divine  both  in  its  inception  and  in  its  continuance.  The 
Christian  man  is  born  from  above,  and  the  Spirit  of  God 
or  of  Christ,  or  God  or  Christ  himself,  dwells  in  him  and 
makes  him  what  he  is.  If  these  views  of  Christ  and  of 
the  Christian  life  were  found  only  in  the  epistle;  or  only 
in  the  narrative  portions  of  the  Gospel,  the  matter  would 
be  comparatively  simple ;  for  it  might  easily  be  assumed 
that  the  author  learned  them  from  Paul,  even  though  in 

1  On  the  connection  of  these  writings  with  the  apostle  John,  see  below, 
p.  613  sq. 

2  It  is  to  be  observed  that  the  belief  in  Christ's  pre-existence,  which  appears 
in  the  fourth  Gospel,  cannot  be  explained  as  the  same  belief  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  was  explained,  as  a  result  of  Philo's  influence.    Aside  from  the 
term  "  Logos,"  which  is  confined  to  the  prologue,  there' is  no  trace  of  Philo's 
ideas.    In  fact,  there  is  more  than  one  passage  which  runs  exactly  counter  to 
all  Philo's  thinking  (cf.,  e.g.,  vi.  37, 44,  66,  x.  29) .    In  the  light  of  this  fact,  the 
use  of  the  term  "  Logos  "  proves  little.    It  was  doubtless  already  widely  current 
in  Hellenistic  circles,  and  the  author  adopted  it  and  put  it  in  the  forefront  of 
his  Gospel,  simply  because  he  was  convinced  that  all  that  his  contemporaries 
found  in  the  Logos  he  and  his  fellow-disciples  actually  had  in  Christ  in  visible 
form ;  and  he  believed  that  he  could  thus  best  interest  them  in  the  Saviour  of 
whom  he  wrote.    That  the  author  did  not  owe  his  belief  in  Christ's  pre-exist- 
ence to  Philo  is  made  still  more  evident  by  the  fact  that  he  connects  that  pre- 
existence  directly  with  Christ's  work  of  redemption  as  Paul  does.     It  is 
because  he  came  down  from  heaven  that  he  can  reveal  the  Father,  and  give 
the  bread  of  life  to  men,  and  thus  save  them.    Of  this  connection  there  is  no 
trace  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  hence,  though  that  epistle  agrees  both 
with  Paul  and  with  John  in  its  emphasis  upon  the  fact  of  Christ's  pre-exist- 
ence, the  three  do  not  represent  a  single  line  of  development.    Paul  and  John 
stand  together  at  this  point,  as  the  representatives  of  the  religious  interest, 
while  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  stands  apart  as  the  exponent  of  the  philo- 
sophic interest  which  voiced  itself  in  the  school  of  Philo.    The  fact  that  two 
independent  interests  thus  led  up  to  the  same  belief  is  of  the  greatest  historic 
significance.    It  was  possible,  as  it  proved,  for  the  Logos  Christology  ultimately 
to  satisfy  both  the  religious  and  the  philosophic  needs  of  Christendom,  and  to 
take  complete  possession  of  the  field. 


THE  CHRISTIANITY   OF  THE  CHtTRCH   AT   LARGE      489 

other  respects  he  did  not  reproduce  the  teachings  of  the 
great  apostle  to  the  Gentiles.  But  the  difficulty  is  that 
both  the  pre-existence  of  Christ  and  the  divine  origin 
and  basis  of  the  Christian  life  are  found  clearly  and 
unequivocally  expressed  in  the  discourses  of  Jesus  him- 
self, one  or  the  other  of  them  being  in  fact  the  subject  of 
the  majority  of  those  discourses.  And  yet  in  the  Synoptic 
Gospels  there  is  hardly  a  trace  of  either  of  them.  Is  it, 
then,  to  be  supposed  that  the  discourses  are  wholly  John's, 
and  that  he  has  simply  put  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus  ideas 
learned  from  Paul  ?  This  was  formerly  a  common  opinion 
among  critical  scholars,  and  is  still  held  by  many.1  And 
yet  there  are  reasons  for  thinking  that  the  conclusion  is 
unfounded.  Such  a  method  on  the  part  of  the  author  of 
the  fourth  Gospel  implies  an  indifference  to  historic 
truth  which  is  by  no  means  borne  out  by  the  Gospel  as  a 
whole.  In  spite  of  some  evidences  of  lack  of  informa- 
tion, or  of  intentional  disregard  of  chronological  sequence, 
there  are  recorded  in  many  cases  words  and  actions  of 
Jesus  entirely  out  of  line  with  the  author's  own  concep- 
tion of  his  character  and  person,  and  their  insertion  in 
the  Gospel  can  be  explained  only  by  his  desire  to  write  a 
true  account  of  the  Master's  life.  Thus,  although  Christ 
is  represented  as  a  divine  being,  come  down  from  heaven 
and  living  upon  earth,  words  and  deeds  are  recorded 
which  show  that  he  was  conscious  of  human  weakness 
and  insufficiency,  and  was  in  a  true  sense  a  child  of  the 
earth,  like  the  other  men  about  him  with  whom  he  asso- 
ciated day  by  day.2  Such  words  and  deeds  seem  to 
destroy  the  unity  and  consistency  of  the  author's  por- 
traiture of  the  divine  Christ,  and  could  have  found  no 
place  in  his  work  except  under  the  pressure  of  his  wish  to 
record  the  actual  facts  as  he  knew  them.  But  if  he  had 
such  a  desire,  it  can  hardly  be  supposed  that  he  put  into 
Jesus'  mouth  extended  discourses  which  had  no  basis 
whatever  in  his  actual  words. 

1  For  the  best  presentation  of  this  view,  see  O.  Holtzmann's  Johannes- 
evangelium  (1887). 

2  Cf.,  e.g.,  John  iv.  6,  v.  19,  30,  vii.  1,  xi.  33  sq.,  4!,  xii.  27,  49,  xix.  11,  28. 


490  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

Again,  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  although  the  picture  of 
Jesus  drawn  by  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  is  in 
striking  contrast  to  that  portrayed  by  the  Synoptists, 
and  though  the  discourses  of  the  one  are  very  different 
from  the  pregnant  and  sententious  sayings  of  the  others, 
there  are  some  utterances  recorded  in  the  earlier  Gos- 
pels which  suggest  on  the  one  hand  the  exalted  per- 
sonal consciousness,  and  on  the  other  hand  the  conception 
of  the  Christian  life  which  find  such  extended  expression 
in  the  fourth  Gospel.  Thus  in  Matthew  and  Luke  we 
have  the  words:  "All  things  have  been  delivered  unto 
me  of  my  Father,  and  no  one  knoweth  the  Son,  save  the 
Father;  neither  doth  any  know  the  Father,  save  the  Son, 
and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son  willeth  to  reveal  him."1 
And  in  the  eschatological  passages  of  the  Synoptic  Gos- 
pels Jesus'  Messianic  consciousness  appears  highly  devel- 
oped, and  involves  his  exaltation  above  the  level  of  the 
mere  earthly  and  human.  Though,  to  be  sure,  the  con- 
sciousness of  pre-existence,  to  which  the  fourth  Gospel 
bears  witness,  does  not  appear  in  the  other  Gospels,  there 
is  nothing  in  it  absolutely  irreconcilable  with  Synoptic 
teaching,  and  hence,  in  view  of  the  utterances  just  referred 
to,  it  cannot  fairly  be  said  that  there  is  sufficient  ground 
for  denying  the  authenticity  of  the  discourses  of  the  fourth 
Gospel,  simply  because  they  give  expression  to  a  conscious- 
ness on  Christ's  part  of  the  possession  of  a  superhuman, 
supramundane  character. 

The  same  may  be  said  in  regard  to  the  discourses  in 
which  the  divine  origin  and  basis  of  the  Christian  life 
are  emphasized.  There  are  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  a 
few  isolated  utterances  which  go  to  show  that  the  Christ 
there  depicted  might  have  represented  the  Christian  life 
under  such  an  aspect.  Thus  we  read:  "Unto  you  it  is 
given  to  know  the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
but  unto  them  it  is  not  given."2  "Blessed  art  thou, 
Simon  Bar- Jonah ;  for  flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed  it 
unto  thee,  but  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven."3  "With 

1  Matt.  xi.  27 ;  Luke  x.  22.  2  Matt.  xiii.  11 ;  cf .  Mark  iv.  11. 

s  Matt.  xvi.  17. 


THE   CHRISTIANITY   OF   THE   CHURCH    AT   LARGE      491 

men  this  is  impossible,  but  with  God  all  things  are  pos- 
sible."1 "For  it  is  not  ye  that  speak,  but  the  Holy 
Ghost."2  In  the  light  of  these  passages  it  cannot  be 
said  that  there  is  sufficient  ground  for  denying  the 
authenticity  of  the  discourses  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  sim- 
ply because  they  represent  the  Christian  life  as  divine  in 
its  inception  and  continuance.3 

It  must  be  maintained,  then,  that  the  author  of  the 
fourth  Gospel  may  have  been  true  to  historic  fact  in  rep- 
resenting Christ  as  giving  utterance  to  a  belief  in  his  own 
pre-existence  and  to  the  conception  of  the  divine  origin 
and  basis  of  the  Christian  life,  and  that  he  cannot  fairly 
be  accused  of  ascribing  to  Jesus  a  truth  which  originated 
only  with  Paul.  How,  then,  are  we  to  explain  Paul's 
relation  on  the  one  hand  to  that  truth  itself,  and  on  the 
other  hand  to  the  expression  of  it  in  the  fourth  Gospel? 
It  can  hardly  be  supposed  that  Paul  adopted,  even  under 
the  guidance  of  his  own  religious  experience,  a  view  of 
Christ  and  of  the  Christian  life  out  of  line  with  all  that 
he  knew  of  the  teaching  of  the  Master;  or  that  he  was 
led  by  the  revelation  vouchsafed  him  on  the  road  to  Damas- 
cus to  the  same  view  to  which  Jesus  had  given  utterance, 
and  yet  remained  in  ignorance  of  his  agreement  with  him. 
It  is  more  natural  to  assume  that  in  reaching  his  position, 
Paul  felt  to  some  extent  the  guiding  influence  of  Christ's 
instruction  as  well  as  the  leading  of  his  own  experience. 
And  yet  in  view  of  the  almost  total  silence  of  the  Synoptic 
Gospels,  and  of  Paul's  lack  of  reference  to  words  of  Christ 
upon  the  subject ;  in  view,  moreover,  of  his  account  of  his 
conversion,  and  his  emphatic  declaration  that  he  did  not 
learn  his  Gospel  through  converse  with  the  apostles,  it 
certainly  will  not  do  to  assume  that  the  discourses  of  the 

1  Matt.  xix.  26 ;  cf .  Mark  x.  27. 

2  Mark  xiii.  11 ;  cf .  Matt.  x.  19  sq. ;   Luke  xii.  12.    Compare  also  Matt, 
xxviii.  20 ;   Luke  xi.  13,  xxii.  32,  and  the  passages  already  quoted  from  Matt, 
xi.  27  and  Luke  x.  22. 

3  It  is  to  be  noticed  also  that  in  the  Epistle  of  James,  which  contains  much 
that  is  closely  related  to  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  especially  to  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount,  there  is  a  hint  of  an  acquaintance  with  the  conception  of  the  divine 
origin  of  the  Christian  life  which  appears  in  the  fourth  Gospel.    Thus  we  read 
in  i.  18:  "  Of  his  own  will  he  brought  us  forth  by  the  word  of  truth." 


492  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

fourth  Gospel,  which  were  first  given  to  the  world  at 
large  more  than  half  a  century  after  the  Saviour's  death, 
or  even  the  substance  of  those  discourses,  was  already 
known  to  Paul  at  the  time  of  his  conversion  or  during 
the  early  years  of  his  Christian  life,  when  his  conception 
of  the  Gospel  took  permanent  shape.  But  it  is  not  impos- 
sible that  scattered  words  of  Christ,  which  were  generally 
known  among  his  followers  but  had  made  little  impres- 
sion upon  them,  and  of  which  only  the  vaguest  hints 
are  found  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  came  to  Paul's  ears, 
and  took  on  new  meaning  to  him  in  the  light  of  his  own 
experience,  and  confirmed  and  clarified  his  conception  of 
the  Gospel,  and  that,  thus  set  in  their  true  light  by  him, 
their  significance  was  finally  understood  by  a  disciple 
who  had  known  Christ  personally,  and  led  him  to  recall 
still  other  words  to  the  same  effect  which  had  been  com- 
monly forgotten  or  neglected.  It  was,  at  any  rate,  under 
the  indirect  influence  of  Paul  that  the  discourses  of  the 
fourth  Gospel  were  composed.  That  many  of  the  ideas 
which  find  expression  in  them  go  back  to  Jesus  himself 
there  is  no  sufficient  ground  for  denying,  but  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  account  for  their  preservation,  and  it  is  impossi- 
ble to  explain  the  form  and  the  emphasis  given  to  them, 
except  in  the  light  of  Paul's  teaching. 

And  yet  though  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  had 
undoubtedly  learned  much  from  Paul,  he  was  by  no  means 
a  slavish  imitator  of  the  great  apostle  to  the  Gentiles. 
He  was  a  disciple  of  Christ  before  he  was  a  disciple  of 
Paul,  and  though  the  latter  influenced  mightily  his  con- 
ception of  the  Master,  he  was  still  under  the  sway  of  the 
historic  Jesus,  and  it  was  of  him  he  wrote.  The  prologue 
of  the  Gospel  should  not  lead  us  into  the  mistake  of  sup- 
posing that  the  author  was  concerned  primarily  with  the 
pre-existent  Son  of  God,  and  that  his  Gospel  was  in- 
tended simply  to  recount  his  manifestation  in  the  flesh. 
The  truth  is  that  he  was  interested  first  of  all  in  the  man 
Jesus  and  took  his  departure  from  him.  His  belief  that 
Christ  had  come  from  heaven,  and  that  he  had  returned 
thither  to  be  again  with  Him  from  whom  he  came  forth, 


THE   CHRISTIANITY   OF   THE   CHURCH   AT   LARGE      493 

rested  ultimately  upon  the  impression  of  his  oneness  with 
God  which  had  been  gained  from  a  study  of  his  earthly 
life.  That  impression  alone  might  not  perhaps  have  led 
the  author  to  the  conclusion  which  finds  its  most  explicit 
utterance  in  the  first  verse  of  the  prologue,  but  the  con- 
clusion once  suggested,  that  impression  constituted  its 
immediate  and  only  adequate  confirmation.  He  wrote 
his  Gospel  not  in  order  to  prove  that  the  Logos  had  come 
down  to  earth,  but  in  order  to  prove  that  "  Jesus  is  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God."1  It  was  only  because  of  his 
primary  interest  in  the  man  Jesus  that  he  wrote  his 
Gospel  at  all.  Paul  would  hardly  have  thought  of  writ- 
ing a  Gospel,  even  had  he  known  all  about  Christ's  life. 
His  interest  centred,  altogether  in  the  dying  and  risen 
Christ.  The  contrast  between  John  and  Paul  at  this 
point  appears  very  clearly  in  the  fact  that  the  former 
represents  Christ  as  dwelling  in  his  followers  even  during 
his  earthly  life  among  them,  and  not  simply  after  his 
departure  from  them.2  Only  one  who  had  himself  known 
Jesus,  or  had  learned  of  him  first  from  one  of  his  own 
disciples,  could  thus  have  given  to  him  during  his  life 
on  earth,  before  his  death  and  resurrection,  the  saving 
significance  which  Paul  ascribed  to  him  only  in  his 
exalted  spiritual  existence,  after  he  had  laid  aside  the 
trammels  of  the  flesh. 

It  was  this  same  impression  of  the  historic  life  of  Jesus 
that  led  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  to  picture  his 
work  chiefly  under  the  aspect  of  the  impartation  to  men 
of  the  life  of  God  by  the  manifestation  of  God  in  his  own 
person  and  teaching.  Although  reference  is  made  occa- 
sionally to  the  saving  significance  of  his  death,3  there  is 
no  trace  of  the  Pauline  idea  that  he  accomplished  the 
redemption  of  men  by  dying  unto  the  flesh  and  by  rising 
again  in  the  Spirit.  His  death  is  viewed  commonly  sim- 
ply as  a  manifestation  of  the  love  of  God  drawing  men 
unto  him.4  Thus  the  death  of  Christ  had  not  the  funda- 

1  John  xx.  31.  2  John  xv.  1  sq. 

«  John  iii.  14,  x.  11  sq.,  xi.  51,  xii.  32,  xv.  13 ;  1  John  i.  7,  iii.  16. 

4  Cf.  John  iii.  14  sq.,  xii.  32. 


494  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

mental  and  controlling  significance  to  John  that  it  had 
to  Paul.1  The  same  may  be  said  also  of  his  resurrection. 
Instead  of  meaning,  as  it  did  to  Paul,  release  from  the 
flesh  and  a  new  life  in  the  Spirit,  it  meant  to  John, 
just  as  it  did  to  the  Synoptists,  Christ's  resurrection 
in  the  flesh;2  and  the  only  saving  efficacy  that  attached 
to  it  beyond  the  confirmation  of  his  disciples'  faith  in 
him,3  was  that  it  made  it  possible  for  him  to  return  to 
the  Father  and  to  send  down  the  Spirit  for  their  aid  and 
guidance.4  This  is  all  the  more  significant,  because 
John  had  Paul's  idea  that  the  Christian  man  has  already 
passed  from  death  unto  life,  and  has  thus  already  enjoyed 
a  spiritual  resurrection.5  That  with  this  conception  of 
the  Christian  life  he  should  fail  to  ascribe  to  Christ's 
resurrection  the  effect  which  Paul  ascribed  to  it,  confirms 
the  impression  made  by  his  omission  of  Paul's  interpre- 

1  In  only  one  passage  in  the  Johannine  writings  is  the  death  of  Christ  ex- 
plicitly connected  with  sin,  namely,  in  1  John  i.  7,  where  it  is  said,  "  The  blood 
of  Jesus  his  Son  cleanseth  us  from  all  sin."     A  connection  is  also  implied  in 
the  Baptist's  words  in  John  i.  29:  "Behold,  the  Lamb  of  God,  which  taketh 
away  the  sin  of  the  world  " ;   and  in  1  John  ii.  2,  and  iv.  10,  where  Christ  is 
called  a  propitiation  for  sins.    The  contrast  at  this  point  not  only  between 
John  and  Paul,  but  also  between  John  and  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  is  very  marked.    That  John  felt  to  a  less  degree  than  the  latter  did 
the  influence  of  Paul  in  this  matter,  was  doubtless  due  in  part  to  the  fact  that 
his  interest  was  not  so  predominantly  ethical  (see  below,  p.  496) ,  in  part  to  the 
controlling  impression  upon  him  of  the  earthly  life  of  Christ. 

2  How  little  John  appreciated  or  sympathized  with  Paul's  conception  of 
redemption  as  a  release  from  the  flesh  is  made  clear  enough  by  his  emphasis 
upon  the  fact  that  Christ  rose  in  the  flesh,  and  in  the  same  flesh  which  he 
had  before  his  death  (cf.  xx.  20,  27).    It  is  instructive  in  this  connection  to 
compare  Ignatius  (Srnyr.  3),  who  is  still  more  pronounced  in  his  departure 
from  the  conception  of  Paul. 

8  John  xx.  8,  28. 

4  John  xiv.,  xvi.  7  sq.,  xx.  17.  John's  idea  of  Christ  as  an  advocate  with  the 
Father  (1  John  ii.  1)  resembles  the  idea  that  he  intercedes  with  the  Father, 
which  appears  in  Rom.  viii.  34,  and  in  Heb.  vii.  25.  Doubtless  we  have  a  sign 
of  Paul's  influence  at  this  point,  but  the  conception  is  not  carried  out  as  it  is 
by  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

6  1  John  ii.  29,  iii.  14,  v.  12  sq.  (cf.  John  v.  21,  24).  The  idea,  in  fact,  is  so 
prominent  in  John's  thought  that  it  almost  completely  overshadows  the 
common  expectation  of  the  final  bodily  resurrection.  Christ  speaks  of  the 
final  resurrection  in  John  v.  29,  vi.  39  sq.,  44,  54,  but  there  is  no  reference  to 
it  in  John's  epistle,  and  it  is  evident  that  it  is  subordinated  in  the  author's 
mind  to  the  spiritual  resurrection  of  believers  which  takes  place  in  this  life. 
According  to  v.  29,  unbelievers  as  well  as  believers  share  in  the  final  resurrec- 
tion. Paul's  idea,  therefore,  that  that  resurrection  is  simply  a  fruit  of  the 
present  spiritual  resurrection,  is  wanting. 


THE  CHRISTIANITY   OF   TBE   CHURCH   AT   LARGE      495 

tation  of  Christ's  death,  and  by  his  general  view  of  the 
significance  of  Christ's  life  on  earth.  His  system  was 
evidently  not  merely  a  development  of  Paul's.  It  had, 
in  fact,  another  basis,  and  Paul's  influence  was  but 
secondary. 

Another  striking  mark  of  difference  between  John  and 
Paul  lies  in  their  conception  of  the  believer's  relation  to 
law.  John  agrees  with  Paul,  to  be  sure,  that  the  Gospel 
is  for  all  men,  not  merely  for  the  Jews,  and  he  never 
thinks  of  requiring  of  Gentile  converts  circumcision  and 
the  observance  of  the  Jewish  law.  He  even  goes  beyond 
Paul  in  his  hostility  to  his  unbelieving  countrymen,  and 
he  holds  out  no  hope  of  the  ultimate  salvation  of  Israel, 
such  as  Paul  gives  expression  to  in  his  Epistle  to  the 
Romans.  But  although  he  thus  occupies  in  this  respect 
the  standpoint  of  a  Christian  of  the  world,  to  whom 
Jewish  law  and  prerogative  mean  nothing,  he  has  no  con- 
ception of  the  believer's  liberty  from  all  law  in  his  new 
spiritual  life  with  Christ.  When  he  speaks  of  the  free- 
dom which  Christ  brings  his  disciples,  it  is  freedom  from 
sin  of  which  he  thinks,1  and  he  regards  the  Christian  as 
just  as  truly  subject  to  law  as  any  one  else.  "  We  receive 
what  we  ask  of  God,"  he  says,  "because  we  keep  his 
commandments  and  do  the  things  that  are  pleasing  in  his 
sight."2  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  idea  of  the 
Christian  life  as  the  keeping  of  God's  commandments, 
which  is  somewhat  out  of  line  with  the  author's  view  that 
Christ  dwells  in  the  Christian,  making  his  life  truly 
divine,  was  due,  in  part  at  least,  to  the  influence  of  the 
legal  conception  of  Christianity,  which  was  so  widely 
prevalent  in  the  church  at  large.  Though  he  was  so 
saturated  with  the  Pauline  view  of  the  Christian  life, 
John  felt  the  influence  of  that  common  conception  even 
more  than  the  author  of  1  Peter  did. 

Another  marked  difference  between  John  and  Paul 
appears  in  the  views  which  they  take  of  the  redemption 
accomplished  by  Christ.  To  Paul  it  is  release  from  the 

1  Cf.  the  words  of  Christ  which  John  quotes  in  viii.  31  sq. 
siJohniii.  22;  cf.  vs.  24. 


496  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

sinful  flesh,  and  thus  escape  from  death,  and  an  entrance 
upon  a  new  life  of  complete  holiness  in  the  Spirit.  The 
idea  of  salvation  as  an  escape  from  death  and  the  attain- 
ment of  eternal  life  is  common  in  John's  writings,1  and 
the  complete  holiness  of  the  believer  is  asserted  in  his 
epistle.2  Moreover,  in  the  conversation  with  Nicodemus 
we  have  the  flesh  and  the  Spirit  contrasted  in  a  way  that 
reminds  us  of  Paul.3  But  the  contrast  is  not  carried  out, 
and  redemption  is  not  represented  as  accomplishing  a 
man's  release  from  the  flesh.  In  place  of  this  idea,  which 
is  so  prominent  in  Paul,  we  find  redemption  repeatedly 
pictured  as  a  transfer  from  the  realm  of  darkness  into  the 
realm  of  light.4  In  spite  of  all  he  has  to  say  about  sin, 
and  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  he  more  than  once  represents 
Christ  as  coming  to  take  away  sin,5  John  had  apparently 
no  such  controlling  ethical  interest  as  characterized  Paul 
and  the  Synoptists,  and  indeed  the  church  at  large  of 
his  day.  Not  to  escape  from  sin,  but  to  know  God,  he 
regarded  as  the  chief  thing,  the  summum  bonum.6  And 
so  Christ's  great  work  was  to  manifest  the  Father;  and 
where  that  manifestation  is  recognized  and  accepted  is 
eternal  life,  where  it  is  rejected  is  eternal  death.7  John's 
supreme  interest  in  this  aspect  of  redemption  and  in  this 
side  of  Christ's  work  is  revealed  very  clearly  in  the  idea, 
to  which  he  gives  occasional  expression,  that  the  Gospel 
is  not  for  the  sinful  but  for  the  righteous;  that  Christ 
came  to  save  only  those  that  were  already  his  own ;  and 
that  only  the  prepared  can  receive  him  and  come  into 
the  light  and  enjoy  eternal  life.8  This  idea,  which  tends 
to  take  away  from  Jesus'  work  much  of  its  ethical  sig- 

1 1  John  iii.  14  sq.,  iv.  9,  v.  11  sq. ;  cf.  John  v.  24,  vi.  48  sq.,  viii.  51,  etc. 

2  1  John  iii.  G,  9,  v.  18,  where  the  author  denies  that  the  Christian  can  sin, 
just  as  Paul  does  in  Rom  viii.  and  elsewhere.  Cf.  also  John  xiii.  10,  xv.  3. 

8  John  iii.  6  sq. ;  cf .  also  i.  13,  vi.  63. 

*  1  John  i.  7  sq.,  ii.  9  sq.,  etc. ;  cf.  John  i.  4  sq.,  iii.  19  sq.,  viii.  12,  ix.  5,  xii. 
35  sq.,  46. 

6  John  i.  29 ;  1  John  iii.  5 ;  cf.  also  John  viii.  24,  36 ;  1  John  ii.  2,  iv.  10. 

6  1  John  ii.  3,  13,  22,  iii.  1,  iv.  6  sq.,  v.  20;  cf.  also  John  xiv.  20  sq.,  xvii.  3. 

7  1  John  ii.  23  sq.,  v.  20;  cf.  John  i.  18,  iii.  32,  v.  24,  viii.  31  sq.,  51  sq.,  xii. 
36,  xiv.  6  sq.,  xvii.  6,  26,  xviii.  37. 

8  John  ix.  31,  xi.  52,  xiii.  1 ;  1  John  v.  20;  cf.  John  iii.  20  sq.,  viii.  44,  xv.  13, 
xviii.  37. 


THE   CHRISTIANITY   OF   THE   CHUKCH   AT  LARGE      497 

nificance  and  efficacy,  is  so  different  from  his  general 
teaching  contained  in  all  four  of  the  Gospels,  that  it 
would  seem  that  it  must  be  John's  and  not  Christ's,  at 
least  in  the  form  in  which  we  have  it. 

Our  author's  view  of  redemption  as  the  transfer  of  man 
from  the  realm  of  darkness  to  the  realm  of  light,  and  of 
Christ's  work  as  primarily  a  work  of  illumination,  has 
been  supposed  by  many  to  be  due  to  Hellenic  influence, 
or  more  particularly  to  the  influence  of  Gnosticism.  And 
there  can  be  little  doubt  that  at  any  rate  the  same  ten- 
dency that  voiced  itself  in  Gnosticism  had  something  to 
do  with  the  marked  emphasis  which  the  idea  receives,  and 
the  peculiar  form  which  it  takes  in  John's  writings.  But 
it  is  a  mistake  to  derive  the  idea  itself  either  wholly  or 
chiefly  from  that  source.  It  is,  in  fact,  simply  a  result  of 
the  common  impression  of  the  life  of  Jesus  upon  those 
with  whom  he  came  in  contact, — a  result  entirely  natural 
to  one  who  believed  in  the  pre-existent  oneness  of  Christ 
with  God,  and  in  the  divine  origin  of  the  Christian  life. 
The  impression  made  by  Jesus  upon  those  that  heard  him 
was  primarily  that  of  a  teacher  who  told  them  of  heavenly 
things;  and  it  was  almost  inevitable  that  one  who  was 
under  the  control  of  that  impression,  and  at  the  same 
time  believed  that  Christ  had  come  from  God  to  bring 
down  the  gift  of  life  to  men,  should  conceive  of  that  life 
as  mediated  by  his  manifestation  of  the  Father,  and  should 
consequently  picture  his  work  chiefly  under  the  aspect  of 
revelation  or  illumination.  The  idea,  therefore,  though 
it  may  perhaps  testify  to  the  influence  of  a  tendency  which 
was  widespread  in  the  contemporary  Greek  world,  consti- 
tutes at  the  same  time  another  evidence  of  the  degree  to 
which  the  author  felt  the  impression  of  the  earthly  life  of 
Jesus.  The  contrast  between  John  and  Paul  in  their 
attitude  toward  the  life  of  Christ  on  earth,  which  appears 
in  so  many  ways,  is  especially  noticeable  just  at  this 
point.  To  both  of  them  the  Christian  life  is  the  divine 
life  in  man ;  but  while  Paul,  though  he  has  much  to  say 
about  the  virtues  of  the  believer's  life,  never  calls  atten- 
tion to  their  connection  with  the  corresponding  virtues  in 

2K 


498  THE  APOSTOLIC    AGE 

God,  John,  true  to  his  impression  of  Christ  as  primarily 
the  revealer  of  the  Father,  traces  back  the  various  features 
of  the  Christian  character  to  the  character  of  God  himself, 
and  emphasizes  the  fact  that  they  have  their  root  in  him.1 
Thus  men  are  to  cleave  to  the  truth  because  God  is  truth ; 2 
they  are  to  be  pure  because  God  is  pure,  and  righteous 
because  he  is  righteous;3  they  are  to  walk  in  the  light 
because  God  is  light;4  they  are  to  love  God  and  their 
brethren  because  God  is  love ; 5  and  it  is  because  God  is 
life  that  they  who  are  Christ's  have  life.6 

The  difference  of  conception  between  Paul  and  John 
touching  the  work  of  Christ  and  the  redemption  accom- 
plished by  him  resulted  in  a  difference  in  their  ideas  of 
faith.  To  both  of  them  the  word  has  profound  spiritual 
significance,  but  as  used  by  Paul  it  denotes  the  oneness  of 
the  believer  with  Christ  in  his  death  and  resurrection,  — 
a  oneness  so  complete  that  the  acts  of  Christ  become  in  a 
real  sense  the  acts  of  the  believer,  and  the  latter  actually 
dies  and  rises  again  with  his  Master.  The  object  of 
faith  is  thus  not  merely  Christ,  but  Christ  dying  and 
rising  again.  To  John,  on  the  other  hand,  faith  is  the 
attitude  of  receptivity  toward  Christ  in  the  totality  of  his 
person,  as  the  complete  manifestation  of  God.  Receiving 
Christ  in  the  Johannine  sense,  the  believer  receives  his 
revelation  of  the  Father,  and  passes  from  darkness  to 
light,  and  thus  from  death  to  life.  The  fact  upon  which 
faith  lays  hold,  therefore,  is  not  Christ's  work  for  the 
sinner,  but  Christ's  relation  to  God,  which  makes  him  a 
manifestation  of  the  Father.  Thus  John  was  driven,  not 
by  a  speculative,  but  by  a  practical  interest,  to  consider 
more  fully  than  Paul  the  nature  of  Christ,  and  to  exhibit 
his  pre-existent  connection  with  God.  And  thus  at  the 
same  time  faith  tended  to  become  more  of  an  intellectual 
act  and  to  lose  something  of  its  religious  significance. 
Instead  of  binding  the  soul  immediately  to  Christ,  and 

1  Cf.  Stevens:  The  Johannine  Theology,  p.  4  sq. 

2  1  John  v.  20;  cf.  John  iii.  21,  viii.  26,  31  sq. 

81  John  ii.  6,  29,  iii.  3,  7.  4  1  John  i.  5.  «  1  John  iv.  7,  16  sq. 

6  1  John  i.  2  sq. ;  cf .  John  vi.  57.  And  so,  according  to  Jesus,  as  quoted  in 
John  iv.  24,  men  are  to  worship  God  in  spirit,  because  God  is  a  Spirit. 


THE   CHRISTIANITY   OF    THE   CHURCH   AT   LARGE      499 

bringing  about  the  mystical  identity  of  the  believer  and 
his  divine  Master,  it  was  thought  of  as  preparing  the  soul 
for  the  reception  of  that  knowledge  of  God  which  leads  to 
eternal  life ;  and  however  spiritually  and  vitally  that  knowl- 
edge might  be  conceived,  the  stress  laid  upon  it  promoted 
the  tendency  to  emphasize  the  intellectual  at  the  expense 
of  the  religious  element, —  a  tendency  which  already  makes 
its  appearance  in  John's  first  epistle,  where  the  recogni- 
tion of  the  divine  sonship  of  Jesus  and  of  the  reality  of 
his  incarnation  is  made  a  test  of  Christian  character.1 

The  brief  comparison  we  have  made  of  the  conceptions 
of  Paul  and  John  shows  how  widely  and  in  how  many 
respects  two  of  the  most  influential  thinkers  of  the  primi- 
tive church  could  differ,  while  at  the  same  time  funda- 
mentally agreed  touching  the  person  of  Christ  and  the 
nature  of  the  Christian  life.  It  shows  also  how  some  of 
Paul's  controlling  conceptions  lived  after  him  and  had  a 
history  in  the  Christian  church,  while  others  which  con- 
stituted a  no  less  essential  part  of  his  system  were  entirely 
neglected.  With  his  conception  of  the  pre-existence  of 
the  Son  of  God,  those  who  came  after  him  had  no  trouble. 
But  his  idea  of  the  believer's  oneness  with  Christ  in  his 
death  and  resurrection  was  too  profoundly  spiritual,  and 
too  much  out  of  line  with  the  common  experience  of  the 
ordinary  Christian  man,  to  make  its  way  in  the  church  at 
large.  In  the  form,  however,  which  the  conception  of  the 
unity  between  Christ  and  the  believer  took  in  the  writ- 
ings of  John,  it  was  much  easier  of  comprehension  and  of 
verification.  The  divine  origin  of  the  Christian  life,  and 
the  abiding  presence  of  the  spiritual  Christ,  were  facts  to 
which  the  ordinary  experience  of  the  primitive  Christian 

1  Cf.  1  John  iv.  15,  v.  1,  5.  John's  conception  of  faith  was  evidently  much 
more  profound  than  that  which  prevailed  in  the  church  at  large.  But  the 
common  idea  of  the  Christian  life  as  the  observance  of  a  law  had  something 
of  an  influence  even  upon  his  view  of  faith,  though  the  result  was  not  the 
same  as  appears  in  the  writings  which  we  have  already  considered.  Thus  in 
1  John  iii.  23,  he  makes  the  commandments  of  God  include  belief  in  the 
"name  of  his  Son  Jesus  Christ."  This  is  very  instructive,  because  it  shows 
how  the  way  was  opened  for  regarding  faith  as  a  meritorious  act,  and  for 
ranging  it  alongside  of  other  virtues  as  a  part  of  man's  obedience  to  the 
divine  will,  and  thus  one  of  the  means  by  which  he  gains  salvation. 


500  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

bore  constant  testimony;  and  this  belief,  thanks  above  all 
to  the  fourth  Gospel,  lived  on  in  spite  of  the  oblivion 
which  overtook  so  much  that  Paul  taught. 

Closely  related  both  to  Paul  and  to  John  was  another 
Christian  belonging  to  the  same  part  of  the  world  as  the 
latter,  Ignatius  of  Antioch,  who  suffered  martyrdom  in 
the  first  quarter  of  the  second  century.  Into  his  views 
we  cannot  enter  here,  but  it  is  worthy  of  notice  that  he 
was  one  with  both  Paul  and  John  in  his  recognition  of 
the  pre-existence  of  Christ,  and  especially  in  his  empha- 
sis upon  the  real  and  actual  oneness  of  the  believer  with 
Christ.  Salvation  meant  to  him  the  deification  of  man 
by  his  union  with  the  divine ;  and  though  under  influences 
similar  to  those  which  made  themselves  felt  in  the  Greek 
mysteries  and  kindred  religious  developments,  Ignatius' 
conception  of  Christianity  took  on  many  features  foreign 
to  that  of  John,  and  even  more  alien  to  the  thought  of 
Paul,1  the  agreement  of  all  three  in  the  two  fundamental 
positions  referred  to  just  above  is  of  the  very  greatest 
historic  significance.  That  Paul  permanently  influenced 
the  thought  of  the  church  at  large,  was  due  in  no  small 
degree  to  the  fact  that  at  least  a  part  of  his  fundamental 
conception  of  the  Gospel  made  itself  felt  after  his  death 
in  Asia  Minor,  and  that  its  harmony  with  the  life  and 
teachings  of  Jesus  himself  was  there  exhibited  in  a  mas- 
terful way  by  one  of  the  greatest  spirits  of  the  early 
church,  and  that  it  was  combined  by  a  fervent  and  pro- 
found religious  genius  with  other  ideas  easier  of  compre- 
hension by  the  popular  mind  and  more  in  line  with  the 
prevailing  religious  tendencies  of  the  age.2 

1  The  most  striking  differences  between  Paul  and  Ignatius  arose  from  their 
difference  of  conception  touching  the  constitution  of  man,  and  the  consequent 
impossibility  of  an  agreement  concerning  the  nature  and  need  of  redemption. 
To  Ignatius  salvation  did  not  mean,  as  it  meant  to  Paul,  release  from  the 
flesh,  and  entrance  upon  a  new  life  in  the  spirit ;  for  he  regarded  both  flesh 
and  spirit  as  essential  elements  of  humanity,  and  man  therefore  could  not 
exist  without  his  flesh.     Redemption  consequently  meant  to  Ignatius  the 
endowment  of  the  whole  man,  both  flesh  and  spirit,  with  immortality  through 
the  death  and  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  incarnation  of  Deity. 

2  Upon  Ignatius  and  his  relation  to  Paul  and  John,  see  especially  von  der 
Goltz:    Ignatius  von  Antiochien  als  Christ  und  Theologe,  in  von  Gebhardt 
and  Harnack's  Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  XII.  3. 


THE   CHRISTIANITY   OF  THE   CHURCH   AT   LARGE      501 

At  two  points  Christians  of  subsequent  centuries  felt 
the  influence  of  Paul,  where  it  was  not  felt,  at  any  rate  to 
any  marked  degree,  by  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel. 
In  the  first  place,  the  emphasis  which  Paul  put  upon 
Christ's  death  gave  to  that  event  a  value  in  the  eyes  of  the 
church  which  it  would  not  otherwise  have  had.  Upon  this 
subject  John  has  more  to  say  than  the  Synoptists,  but  his 
overmastering  impression  of  the  earthly  life  of  Jesus  pre- 
vented him  from  giving  his  death  the  prominence  which 
it  had  in  Paul's  thought.  In  this  respect  the  church  at 
large  followed  the  lead  of  Paul.  But  they  followed  him 
only  in  emphasizing  the  importance  of  Christ's  death; 
Paul's  interpretation  of  it  they  utterly  failed  to  under- 
stand. Even  Ignatius,  though  he  laid  great  stress  upon 
it,  gave  it  no  real  significance  of  its  own.  The  truth  is, 
that  it  was  centuries  before  the  event,  in  spite  of  all  that 
was  said  and  thought  about  it,  was  given  any  vital  and 
controlling  place  in  Christian  theology. 

In  the  second  place,  Paul's  conception  of  the  church  as 
the  body  of  Christ,  and  of  the  consequent  oneness  of  all  be- 
lievers, to  which  he  gave  fullest  and  most  distinct  expres- 
sion in  his  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  was  taken  up  by  those 
who  came  after  him  and  had  overmastering  and  permanent 
influence  in  the  development  of  ecclesiastical  theory  and 
practice.  The  idea  was  too  foreign  to  the  conceptions  of 
Christ  and  to  all  the  traditions  of  his  teaching,  to  find 
much  of  a  place  in  John's  writings ; l  but  it  was  made  a 
great  deal  of  by  Ignatius,  and  he  was  in  reality  the  first  to 
emphasize  and  develop  it,  and  to  turn  it  to  practical  use 
in  the  interest  both  of  unity  and  of  discipline.  Thus, 
though  Ignatius  departed  from  Paul  at  some  points  even 
further  than  John  did,  more  of  Paul's  thought  lived  on  in 
him  than  in  John,  and  we  really  find  reproduced  in  his 
writings  the  substance  of  practically  all  the  Paulinism 
that  the  church  at  large  permanently  made  its  own.2 

1  But  compare  John  xvii.  and  1  John  ii.  19  sq. 

2  The  pre-existence  and  deity  of  Christ ;  the  union  of  the  believer  with 
Christ,  without  which  the  Christian  life  is  impossible ;   the  importance  of 
Christ's  death ;  the  church  the  body  of  Christ. 


502  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 


5.   THE  RADICAL  PAULINISM  OF  THE  GNOSTICS  AND  OTHER 
SECTARIES 

And  yet,  though  the  church  in  general  accepted  only  a 
part  of  Paul's  gospel,  other  views  of  his  lived  on,  for  a 
time  at  least,  and  enjoyed  a  considerable  development  in 
the  thought  of  Christians  of  other  schools  than  the  school 
of  John  and  Ignatius.  Some  of  his  ideas,  in  fact,  found 
emphatic  though  one-sided  expression  in  the  teachings  of 
many  who  were  looked  upon  as  heretical  by  the  church  at 
large  of  their  own  and  subsequent  generations.  There  can 
be  no  doubt,  for  instance,  that  the  Hymenseus  and  Philetus 
who  were  condemned  by  the  redactor  of  the  pastoral  epis- 
tles because  they  taught  that  the  resurrection  was  already 
past1  were  led  to  take  the  position  they  did  by  Paul's 
teaching  concerning  the  believer's  death  with  Christ  unto 
the  flesh  at  baptism,  and  his  resurrection  with  him  unto 
a  new  life  in  the  Spirit.  Only  such  a  view  as  we  know 
Paul  held  of  a  spiritual  resurrection  in  this  life  can 
account  for  their  belief  that  the  resurrection  had  already 
taken  place.  Similarly,  the  asceticism  in  Colosste,  Hie- 
rapolis,  and  Laodicea,  which  Paul  opposed  in  his  Epistle 
to  the  Colossians,  very  likely  found  something  of  a  basis 
in  his  dualism  of  flesh  and  spirit,  and  in  his  constant 
emphasis  upon  the  spiritual  character  of  the  Christian 
life.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  asceticism  which  is 
denounced  in  the  First  Epistle  to  Timothy.2  Such  liber- 
tinists,  moreover,  as  are  combated  in  1  John,  in  Jude,  and 
in  the  letters  of  John  to  the  churches  of  Pergamum  and 
Thyatira,3  can  hardly  have  gained  their  principles  from 
any  other  source  than  from  Paul's  doctrine  of  the  freedom 
of  the  Christian  man,  or  at  any  rate  they  can  hardly  have 
failed  to  find  confirmation  for  their  principles  in  that 
doctrine. 

But  in  the  great  Christian  reformer,  Marcion,  who 
flourished  in  the  second  quarter  of  the  second  century, 
and  in  the  various  Gnostic  schools  of  the  same  period,  the 
characteristic  views  of  Paul  found  their  fullest  acceptance 

i  2  Tim.  ii.  17  sq.  2  i  Tim.  iv.  3  sq.  8  Rev.  ii.  14  sq,,  20  sq. 


THE   CHRISTIANITY   OF   THE   CHURCH    AT   LARGE      503 

and  their  most  remarkable  development.  The  teachings 
of  these  men  we  cannot  reproduce  here.  It  may  simply 
be  said  that  the  dualism  which  was  common  to  all  their 
systems,  whether  the  result  of  metaphysical  considera- 
tions, as  it  was  with  most  of  them,  or  due  merely  to  a 
practical  interest,  as  was  the  case  with  Marcion,  found 
its  warrant  in  the  dualism  of  Paul,  and  that  its  existence 
within  the  church,  and  the  belief  of  its  representatives 
that  it  was  genuinely  Christian,  can  be  explained  only  in 
the  light  of  Paul's  doctrine  of  flesh  and  spirit.  And  so 
the  antinomy  between  Judaism  and  Christianity,  and  be- 
tween the  creating  and  redeeming  God,  upon  which  most 
of  them  laid  so  much  stress ;  the  asceticism  upon  which 
many  of  them  insisted,  and  the  libertinism  inculcated  by 
others ;  their  assertion  of  the  impossibility  of  salvation  for 
any  man  not  endowed  from  above  with  a  spiritual  nature ; 
their  Docetic  views  of  Christ,  and  their  identification  of 
him  with  one  of  the  pre-existing  beings  or  aeons,  which 
were  supposed  to  bridge  the  chasm  between  God  and 
matter;  their  denial  of  the  fleshly  resurrection,  and  their 
insistence  upon  the  purely  spiritual  character  of  eternal 
life, —  all  have  their  points  of  contact  in  the  system  of 
Paul,  and  may  be  recognized  as  more  or  less  perverted  and 
distorted  reproductions  of  his  views  touching  the  relation 
of  law  and  gospel,  the  origin  and  nature  of  the  Christian 
life,  and  the  person  and  work  of  Christ.  The  Gnostics 
simply  carried  out  consistently  the  Hellenistic  tendency 
which  voiced  itself  to  a  limited  degree  in  Paul.  The  dual- 
ism, which  in  his  thinking  was  religious  merely,  because 
he  was  concerned  only  to  interpret  his  own  experience,  in 
their  thinking  was  cosmical  as  well.  The  contrast  and 
the  irreconcilability  between  matter,  or  flesh,  and  spirit 
was  to  them  not  simply  a  means  of  understanding  the  reli- 
gious experience  of  the  redeemed  man,  but  a  fundamental 
postulate  in  the  light  of  which  Christianity  and  the  history 
of  the  universe  as  a  whole  must  be  read. 

And  so,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  their  teaching  was  so 
closely  related  to  Paul's  in  many  respects,  and  their  fun- 
damental postulate  but  the  consistent  carrying  out  of  a 


504  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

principle  upon  which  he  too  laid  great  stress,  he  could 
not  have  seen  in  them  his  legitimate  followers.  Their 
thoroughgoing  dualism,  which  left  no  room  for  a  belief 
in  providence,  their  attitude  toward  historic  Judaism, 
their  asceticism  (or  libertinism),  and  above  all  their  Doce- 
tism,  which  made  the  death  of  Christ  impossible,  must 
have  been  as  distasteful  to  him  as  they  actually  were  to 
the  church  at  large.  And  yet  the  controlling  influence 
of  his  principles  upon  their  thought  is  not  to  be  mistaken. 
They  were  nearest  him  in  their  doctrine  of  flesh  and  spirit, 
and  in  their  recognition  of  the  Christian  life  as  the  divine 
life  in  man,  eventuating  in  his  complete  and  permanent 
release  from  the  trammels  of  the  flesh;  they  were  farthest 
from  him  in  their  Docetism,  and  in  their  conception  of 
the  work  of  Christ  as  a  mere  illumination  instead  of  a 
real  redemption  by  participation  in  human  flesh. 

The  close  kinship  that  existed  between  these  men  and 
John,  in  spite  of  the  pronounced  hostility  of  the  latter  to 
every  form  of  Docetism,  is  at  once  interesting  and  instruc- 
tive. They  and  he  represent  in  part  an  identical,  in  part 
a  divergent,  development  of  the  principles  of  Paul.  All 
of  them  felt  Paul's  influence  and  were  one  with  each  other 
and  with  him  in  their  belief  in  the  pre-existence  of  Christ 
and  in  the  divine  origin  of  the  Christian  life;  but  the  form 
which  those  beliefs  took,  both  in  John  and  in  the  Gnostics, 
reveals  the  common  operation  of  influences  which  Paul 
did  not  feel.  It  was  due  in  part,  moreover,  to  a  common 
influence,  that  while  following  Paul  in  his  emphasis  upon 
the  work  of  Christ  as  the  sole  ground  of  redemption,  they 
nevertheless  departed  from  him  in  conceiving  that  work 
under  the  aspect  primarily  of  revelation  or  illumination, 
by  which  is  opened  to  the  children  of  God,  that  is,  to  those 
possessed  of  a  truly  spiritual  nature,  the  way  of  entrance 
into  the  realm  of  light,  and  thus  into  the  enjoyment  of 
eternal  life  with  God.  But  at  other  points,  under  the 
control  of  widely  different  interests,  they  went  their  sepa- 
rate ways :  John,  under  the  impression  of  the  earthly  life 
of  Jesus,  refraining  from  carrying  the  Pauline  antithesis 
of  flesh  and  spirit  as  far  as  Paul  himself  had  carried  it; 


THE   CHRISTIANITY   OF  THE   CHURCH   AT   LARGE      505 

the  Gnostics,  on  the  other  hand,  under  the  influence  of 
their  thoroughgoing  dualism,  carrying  it  much  further, 
and  reaching  positions  entirely  out  of  line  with  the  tradi- 
tional belief  of  the  church  at  large. 

Our  study  of  the  leading  ideas  which  found  expression 
in  the  Christian  church  during  the  first  century  has  suf- 
ficed to  show  that  the  development  of  theology  which 
had  its  beginning  then  could  not  fail  to  be  exceedingly 
complicated.  That  development  we  cannot  trace  any 
further  here.  It  may  simply  be  said  that  the  common 
primitive  conception  of  Christianity,  which  was  described 
in  the  earlier  part  of  this  chapter,  continued  in  control. 
Christianity  remained  a  law  and  the  Christian  life  its 
observance.  But  the  influence  of  Paul  made  itself  per- 
manently felt  in  the  combination  with  it  of  the  idea  of 
Christianity  as  a  redemption,  and  in  the  development  and 
elaboration  of  that  idea  Christian  theology  has  had  its  larg- 
est exercise.  Out  of  it  grew  the  church's  historic  insist- 
ence upon  the  deity  of  Christ,  and  upon  the  completeness 
and  reality  of  his  manhood ;  out  of  it  grew  the  doctrine  of 
regeneration,  with  all  that  flows  from  it ;  out  of  it  grew 
the  belief  in  the  real  presence,  and  at  least  some  of  the 
essential  features  of  the  catholic  theory  of  grace.  But 
most  striking  of  all  is  the  fact  that  though  Paul  was  so 
little  understood  and  appreciated  by  those  that  came  after 
him,  and  though  his  fundamental  principles  never  came 
and  never  could  come  to  their  full  rights  in  the  Catholic 
church,  the  ecclesiastical  theory  upon  which  that  church 
was  built  was  due  ultimately  to  him.  The  belief  that  the 
church  is  the  body  of  Christ,  which  finds  its  classic  expres- 
sion in  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  and  which  is  itself 
the  natural  outgrowth  of  his  controlling  conception  of 
salvation,  constitutes  the  basis  upon  which  rests  the  entire 
ecclesiastical  system  of  the  Catholic  church.  Rome  is  not 
wholly  deluded  when  she  traces  her  establishment  to  Paul 
as  well  as  to  Peter,  and  believes  herself  the  heir  of  both. 


506  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE! 


6.   THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE 

Our  study  has  revealed  the  existence  in  the  apostolic 
age  of  two  radically  different  conceptions  of  the  nature 
and  basis  of  the  Christian  life,  but  in  spite  of  the  differ- 
ence there  was  general  agreement  as  to  the  ideal  of  that 
life.  Whether  it  was  believed  with  Paul  that  the  Chris- 
tian life  is  the  divine  life  in  man,  or  that  it  is  man's 
own  life  governed  by  a  divine  law,  in  either  case  the  ideal 
was  conformity  to  the  will  and  character  of  God.  To  be 
perfect  even  as  God  is  perfect,  to  exhibit  in  one's  life  the 
traits  of  the  divine  character,  was  the  supreme  ideal  of 
all.  The  disciples  believed  themselves  to  be  God's  pecul- 
iar and  elect  people.  They  were  not  simply  ^aOr^rai  or 
disciples,  they  were  ayioi  or  saints,  men  set  apart  by  God 
to  his  own  service,  and  hence  they  must  be  governed  by 
divine  principles,  and  must  conform  their  conduct  to  the 
divine  will.  Whether  they  regarded  salvation  as  a  pres- 
ent possession,  or  thought  of  it  as  future  only,  and  pictured 
it  under  the  aspect  of  a  reward  bestowed  upon  those  who 
lived  righteously  and  endured  faithfully  unto  the  end,  in 
either  case  they  were  at  one  in  their  conviction  that  the 
Christian  life  is  distinguished  from  the  life  of  the  unbe- 
liever by  its  heavenly  character;  by  the  fact  that  the  law 
which  governs  it  and  the  standard  which  measures  it  are 
from  .God  and  not  from  man.  But  when  it  came  to  the 
specific  traits  of  character,  or  the  specific  duties  which 
conformity  to  the  divine  .will  required,  it  is  a  notable  fact 
that  there  was  comparatively  little  difference  between  the 
ethical  principles  of  the  Christians  and  the  principles  of 
the  best  men  of  the  Pagan  world.  The  general  ideal  of 
the  Christian  life  was  practically  little  else  than  complete 
conformity  to  the  highest  ethical  standards,  of  the  world 
at  large.  As  in  Jerusalem  the  primitive  disciples  be- 
lieved that  they  ought  to  distinguish  themselves  above 
their  unconverted  brethren  by  a  stricter  and  more  faithful 
observance  of  the  law  of  their  fathers,  so  in  the  Gentile 
world  the  Christians  believed  that  they  ought  to  distin- 
guish themselves  above  their  neighbors  by  their  more  per- 


THE  CHRISTIANITY   OF   THE   CHURCH   AT   LARGE      507 

feet  exhibition  of  those  traits  of  character  which  were 
everywhere  recognized  as  truly  virtuous.  Honesty,  jus- 
tice, truthfulness,  purity,  sobriety,  peaceableness,  were  all 
emphasized  by  Christian  and  Pagan  writers  alike.  Paul, 
indeed,  on  more  than  one  occasion  appealed  directly  to  the 
existing  ethical  standards  of  the  day  as  standards  for  his 
own  converts :  "  Whatsoever  things  are  true,  whatsoever 
things  are  honourable,  whatsoever  things  are  just,  whatso- 
ever things  are  pure,  whatsoever  things  are  lovely,  what- 
soever things  are  of  good  report;  if  there  be  any  virtue, 
arid  if  there  be  any  praise,  think  on  these  things,"  are  his 
words  in  Phil.  iv.  8;  and  in  Rom.  ii.  15,  he  declares  that 
even  the  heathen  have  the  law  of  God  written  on  their 
hearts. 

And  yet,  though  to  live  in  conformity  with  the 
divine  will  meant  to  the  early  Christians  to  live  in 
conformity  with  the  dictates  of  the  universal  human  con- 
science, especial  emphasis  was  laid  by  them  upon  certain 
points,  and  thus  their  life  bore  a  character  differing  in 
some  respects  from  that  of  the  best  Pagans  of  the  age. 
The  most  distinctive  elements  in  the  Christian  life  were 
love  and  holiness.  Upon  love  emphasis  was  laid  by  all 
the  writers  of  the  period,  and  it  constituted  a  prominent 
and  permanent  element  in  the  ethical  ideal.  It  could  not 
be  otherwise,  indeed,  in  the  light  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus. 
But  it  is  significant  that  the  Master's  profound  conception 
of  love  for  God  and  man  lost  much  of  its  depth  and  reach  in 
the  teaching  of  his  disciples.  Of  love  for  God  we  hear  in 
some  of  the  writings  of  the  period,1  but  not  in  all;  and 
in  none  of  them  has  it  any  such  fundamental  and  control- 
ling place  as  in  the  teaching  of  Christ,  and  in  none  of 
them  is  it  filled  so  full  of  meaning.  The  conception  of 
God  as  lawgiver  and  judge  largely  displaced  Christ's 
conception  of  him  as  a  father,  and  fear  and  honor  were 
increasingly  regarded  as  the  proper  attitude  toward  him.2 
In  Paul  and  in  John,  to  be  sure,  the  conception  of  divine 

1  Cf.  Rom.  viii.  28;  1  Cor.  viii.  3;  Heb.  vi.  10;  Jas.  i.  12,  ii.  5;  1  John  iv. 
21,  v.  2. 

2  Cf .  1  Pet.  ii.  17. 


508  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE 

fatherhood  is  preserved,  but  even  in  their  writings  it  is 
less  controlling  than  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  and  else- 
where in  the  literature  of  the  period  there  is  practically 
nothing  of  it.  It  is  not  that  the  belief  in  God's  goodness 
and  grace  disappears  —  that  is  everywhere  maintained ; 
but  the  closeness  and  intimacy  which  are  involved  in 
the  word  "father,"  as  used  by  Christ,  are  largely  lost 
sight  of  by  his  disciples,  and  when  the  term  "  father  "  is 
used  of  God,  it  is  commonly  employed  in  the  sense  of 
creator,  or  characterizes  him  only  in  his  relation  to  Christ. 
But  not  simply  love  for  God,  love  for  man  as  well,  lost 
among  the  early  Christians  something  of  the  meaning 
which  it  had  to  Jesus.  The  notable  fact  about  it  is  the 
growing  tendency  to  narrow  the  circle,  so  that  Christian 
love  becomes  love  for  the  brotherhood,  that  is,  for  one's 
fellow-disciples.  It  is  true  that  love  as  a  constant  atti- 
tude of  the  heart  is  inculcated  by  many  of  the  writers  of 
the  period,  and  that  in  some  cases  love  for  those  without 
the  church  is  explicitly  referred  to,1  but  as  a  rule  the 
emphasis  is  laid  solely  upon  love  for  the  brethren.  Espe- 
cially significant  in  this  connection  is  the  injunction  of 
the  First  Epistle  of  Peter:  "Honour  all  men.  Love  the 
brotherhood.  Fear  God.  Honour  the  king."2 

That  Christians  should  treat  all  with  whom  they  came 
in  contact  with  becoming  respect,  and  that  they  should 
show  them  kindness  as  opportunity  offered,  and  should 
avoid  hatred,  resentment,  and  anger  toward  them,  was  of 
course  believed  by  all ;  but  it  was  the  active  exercise  of 
love,  not  toward  one's  neighbors  in  general,  but  toward 
one's  fellow-disciples,  fellow-members  of  the  one  house- 
hold of  faith,  that  was  chiefly  emphasized.  In  this  the 
feeling  of  brotherhood  in  Christ  found  expression,  and  the 
stress  laid  upon  such  love  is  an  evidence  of  the  vivid  reali- 
zation of  that  brotherhood  on  the  part  of  the  early  Chris- 
tians. Within  the  circle  of  disciples  the  love  which  Jesus 
inculcated  burned  warm  and  vivid,  and  one  of  the  most 

1  Cf.  Rom.  xiii.  8;  1  Thess.  iii.  12. 

2  1  Pet.  ii.  17;  cf.  also  i.  22,  iii.  8,  iv.  8,  and  Rom.  xii.  10;  1  Thess.  iv.  9, 
etc.    The  writings  of  John,  both  Gospel  and  Epistle,  are  especially  notable  in 
this  respect. 


THE  CHRISTIANITY   OF  THE   CHURCH   AT   LARGE      509 

characteristic  marks  of  the  life  of  his  followers  in  the 
apostolic  age  was  their  devotion  to  one  another  and  their 
unselfish  regard  for  each  other's  good.  It  was  this  more 
than  anything  else  that  gave  its  peculiar  character  to  their 
Christian  life,  and  it  did  much  to  attract  others  to  them. 
That  the  circle  within  which  love  found  its  chief  exercise 
should  thus  have  been  narrowed  to  coincide  with  the  limits 
of  the  Christian  brotherhood,  instead  of  retaining  that 
breadth  and  universality  which  it  had  in  the  thought  of 
Christ,  to  whom  all  men  were  brethren,  common  sons  of  a 
common  Father,  was  due  largely  to  the  fact  that  the  Chris- 
tians regarded  themselves  as  an  elect  people  called  by  God 
out  of  the  world  and  separated  from  it  as  his  own  pecul- 
iar possession.  This  feeling  gave  them  a  profound  attach- 
ment to  each  other,  and  marked  them  off  from  all  without 
their  pale  to  such  a  degree  that  the  narrowing  of  the 
sphere  of  love  was  inevitable. 

It  was  this  same  sense  of  being  a  peculiar  people  of  God, 
that  had  much  to  do  with  the  emphasis  which  they  laid 
upon  holiness.  That  which  separated  the  world  from  God, 
and  fundamentally  characterized  it  over  against  him,  was 
its  impurity  and  corruptness;  and  the  distinguishing 
feature  of  the  Christian  life,  as  contrasted  with  the  life 
of  the  world  at  large,  must  consequently  be  its  purity 
and  incorruptness.  In  this  all  the  writers  of  our  period 
were  agreed.  Not  only  Paul,  to  whom  the  contrast  be- 
tween flesh  and  spirit  was  fundamental,  but  also  those 
who  least  felt  his  influence,  were  at  one  in  their  emphasis 
upon  the  virtue  of  holiness.1  Whatever  else  a  Christian 
was,  he  must  at  any  rate  be  holy;  the  very  name,  c^yto?,2 
indeed,  by  which  he  was  commonly  called  by  his  brethren, 
meant  not  simply  set  apart  to  the  service  of  God,  but  also 
free  from  moral  blemish  or  sin. 

That  holiness  or  sinlessness  which  their  character  as 
children  of  God  required  was  commonly  conceived  by 

1  In  addition  to  Paul's  epistles,  in  which  so  much  is  made  of  holiness,  see 
also  1  Tim.  ii.  15;  2  Tim.  i.  9;  Heb.  xii.  14;  Jas.  i.  27 ;  1  Pet.  i.  15;  2  Pet. 
iii.  11 ;  1  John  iii.  4;  Rev.  xxii.  14,  etc. 

2Cf.  not  only  Paul's  epistles,  but  also  Acts  ix.  13,  32,  41;  1  Tim.  v.  10; 
Heb.  vi.  10,  xiii.  24;  Jude  3;  Rev.  v.  8  et  passim. 


510  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

the  early  disciples  as  primarily  the  avoidance  of  fleshly 
impurity  and  lust.  The  crying  sins  of  the  age  were 
fleshly  sins,  and  it  was  natural  that  Paul  and  the  other 
early  missionaries  to  the  Gentiles  should  see  in  such 
fleshliness  the  chief  obstacle  to  the  presence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  whose  very  nature  made  association  with  corrupt- 
ness and  impurity  impossible.  But  without  the  Holy 
Spirit  there  could  be  no  church  and  no  elect  people  of 
God;  only  in  the  Spirit  was  Christ  himself  present  with 
his  disciples  to  bless  and  assist  them;  and  so  it  is  not 
surprising  that  the  emphasis  was  increasingly  laid  upon 
the  cleanness  of  the  Christian  life,  and  that  everything  else 
was  more  and  more  subordinated  to  it.  The  result  was 
that  holiness,  interpreted  in  a  purely  negative  sense,  finally 
acquired  the  controlling  place  in  the  Christian  ideal  which 
active  love  and  devotion  to  the  good  of  others  occupied  in 
the  teaching  of  Jesus,  and  the  entire  bent  of  the  Christian 
life  was  thus  changed.  It  was  not  that  love  was  lost,  but 
that  it  was  subordinated,  and  that  its  vitalizing  and  ener- 
gizing power  was  thus  largely  sacrificed. 

But  such  holiness  as  was  preached  by  the  early  disciples 
involved  not  only  abstinence  from  lust,  intemperance,  and 
other  fleshly  sins  which  were  so  common  in  that  age,  but 
also  the  alienation  of  the  affections  from  the  world.  Love 
for  the  world  was  regarded  as  essentially  the  love  of  that 
which  is  impure  and  unholy  and  consequently  as  incom- 
patible with  the  service  of  God.1  But  the  natural  tendency 
of  such  a  belief  was  of  course  to  lead  to  the  growth  of 
asceticism,  and  of  a  spirit  of  world-renunciation  which 
meant  the  repudiation  of  all  the  natural  relations  of  life. 
That  tendency  was  very  widespread  in  the  early  church, 
and  it  caused  much  trouble  and  perplexity.  It  was  felt 
by  most  of  the  sober-minded  disciples  that  the  tendency 
was  unhealthful  and  ought  to  be  checked,  but  where  to 
check  it,  and  on  what  principle,  was  by  no  means  clear. 
Paul  asserts  that  all  the  creatures  of  God  are  good  and  to 
be  received  with  thanksgiving,  that  there  is  nothing  evil 

1  Cf.,  e.g.,  2  Cor.  vi.  16  sq.;  2  Tim.  iii.  4;  Jas.  iv.  4;  2  Pet.  i.  4;  1  John  ii. 
15  sq. 


THE  CHRISTIANITY   OF   THE  CHURCH   AT   LARGE      511 

iii  itself,  and  that  all  things  are  lawful  to  the  Christian, 
and  yet  Paul  himself  gave  utterance  on  various  occasions 
to  principles  of  a  genuinely  ascetic  character.  Thus  he 
says,  in  1  Cor.  ix.  27:  "I  bruise  my  body  and  bring  it 
into  bondage  " ;  and  in  1  Cor.  vii.  1  sq.  he  implies  that 
celibacy  is  a  higher  state  than  marriage,  and  that  marriage 
is  only  a  concession  to  fleshly  lust  for  the  benefit  of  those 
who  are  weak  and  cannot  restrain  their  passions.1 

The  line  between  friendship  for  the  world,  or  love  of  it 
and  of  the  things  that  are  in  it,2  and  such  use  of  it  as  is 
not  sinful,  the  disciples  found  it  very  difficult  to  draw, 
and  there  was  much  doubt  and  uncertainty  as  to  where 
it  should  be  drawn.  The  church  at  large  finally  settled 
down  upon  the  principle  that  not  the  world  itself  is  evil, 
but  only  the  wrong  use  of  it,  and  that  it  is  not  necessary 
to  repudiate  or  flee  from  the  world,  but  only  to  overcome 
its  temptations  and  to  preserve  oneself  pure  in  the  midst 
of  its  corruptions.  But  there  were  many  who  believed 
themselves  too  weak  thus  to  withstand  the  temptations  of 
the  world,  and  many  more  who  were  too  thoroughgoing 
in  their  interpretation  of  the  holiness  demanded  by  the 
Gospel,  to  be  willing  to  content  themselves  with  such 
half-hearted  measures,  and  so  asceticism  finally  blossomed 
into  monasticism,  and  Christians  in  general  applauded, 
as  the  highest  ideal  of  the  Christian  life,  a  world-renun- 
ciation which  they  did  not  themselves  practise.  The  rise 
of  monasticism  lies  far  beyond  the  close  of  the  apostolic 
age,  but  in  the  tendencies  which  were  already  at  work 
in  that  age  we  can  see  the  roots  of  all  that  followed. 

But  the  significance  of  Christianity  as  an  ethics  lay  not 
so  much  in  the  difference,  even  where  there  was  a  differ- 
ence, between  its  ideal  and  that  of  the  world  at  large,  as  in 
the  motive  power  within  it.  As  an  ethical  system  it  was 
noble,  lofty,  and  pure,  but  as  an  ethical  system  it  could 
never  have  accomplished  what  it  did.  The  teachings  of 
many  others  besides  Christ  were  noble,  lofty,  and  pure. 

1  Cf .  also  2  Cor.  vi.  17  sq. ;  and  Rev.  xiv.  4.    On  the  other  hand,  Paul  takes 
a  higher  view  of  marriage  in  1  Cur.  vii.  13  sq.,  xi.  11,  and  1  Thess.  iv.  4  sq. 

2  Cf.  Jas.  iv.  4;  1  John  ii.  15. 


512  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

That  which  chiefly  differentiated  Christianity  from  other 
ethical  systems  was  the  power  with  which  it  appealed  not 
to  the  wise  and  virtuous  and  noble-minded,  but  to  the 
common  people,  and  the  moral  energy  which  it  supplied 
to  those  who  had  hitherto  been  entirely  without  such 
energy*  That  it  should  lead  the  ignorant  and  the  low 
and  the  worthless  to  live  like  philosophers,  that  is,  to  live 
soberly,  temperately,  and  purely,  was  the  remarkable  thing 
about  it  in  the  eyes  of  thinking  men,  when  they  once  be- 
came aware  of  the  fact.  That  it  could  appeal  with  such 
power  to  the  masses,  was  due  on  the  one  hand  to  its  belief 
in  a  future  life,  with  its  blessedness  for  the  saved  and 
with  its  misery  for  the  lost,  and  on  the  other  hand  to  its 
emphasis  upon  the  eternal  worth  and  the  infinite  possi- 
bilities of  every  human  soul. 

The  power  of  the  eschatological  beliefs  of  the  early 
Christians  has  been  already  referred  to.1  They  had  a  far 
more  vivid  sense  of  the  reality  and  nearness  of  the  future 
world  than  any  of  their  contemporaries,  and  they  could 
preach  it  with  a  vigor  and  certainty  possible  to  no  one 
else.  The  persuasive  power  of  their  appeal  to  it  is  evi- 
denced over  and  over  again  in  the  literature  of  the  period. 
The  consummation  is  at  hand,  the  judgment  is  approach- 
ing, the  Lord  himself  is  about  to  return,  and  into  eternal 
bliss  and  felicity  are  soon  to  enter  all  that  are  truly  his, 
while  those  whom  he  condemns  are  to  suffer  the  fitting 
penalty  for  their  unrighteous  and  unholy  lives. 

But  it  was  not  simply  this  emphasis  upon  the  future 
which  gave  the  Gospel  its  persuasiveness  and  its  impelling 
power;  its  appeal  to  the  moral  possibilities  of  every  man 
meant  even  more.  The  ethical  systems  of  the  Pagan 
world  were  essentially  aristocratic.  They  appealed  to  the 
naturally  high-minded  and  virtuous,  and  they  beautified 
and  ennobled  the  lives  of  mjultitudes  of  the  better  classes; 
but  for  the  ignorant  and  the  degraded,  for  the  vicious  and 
the  abandoned,  they  had  no  message.  For  such  there  was 
no  hope.  But  the  Gospel  appealed  with  peculiar  power 
to  just  such  classes.  To  every  man,  however  degraded, 

i  See  p.  455. 


THE    CHRISTIANITY   OF   THE   CHURCH   AT   LARGE      513 

the  message  was  brought  that  he  possessed  ethical  and 
spiritual  possibilities  hitherto  undreamed  of,  and  he  was 
invited  to  become,  as  he  might  become  if  he  would,  a  child 
of  God,  to  enroll  himself  among  God's  chosen  people,  and 
to  enter  into  the  heritage  prepared  for  those  that  love 
and  serve  him.  The  power  of  this  appeal  under  existing 
conditions  cannot  be  overestimated.  In  it  is  to  be  found, 
doubtless,  one  of  the  chief  causes  of  the  rapi'd  spread  of 
the  Gospel,  and  of  the  tremendous  hold  which  it  took  upon 
the  world.  New  ideals,  new  hopes,  new  visions,  were 
opened  to  the  common  people,  who  had  never  shared  in 
the  delights  of  philosophy,  and  whose  existence  had  been 
circumscribed  hitherto  by  the  bounds  of  their  daily  round 
of  toil.  How  much  it  must  have  meant  to  such  as  they,  to 
be  told  that  there  was  a  larger  life  open  to  them,  that  they 
were  not  mere  slaves  of  circumstance,  but  children  of  God, 
entitled  to  share,  if  they  would,  on  equal  terms  with  the 
highest  and  the  noblest  of  men,  in  blessings  and  glories 
of  infinite  richness  and  worth!  The  divine  sonship  and 
the  universal  brotherhood  of  man  might  be  believed  in  by 
this  or  that  philosopher  as  an  abstract  theory,  and  their 
realization  might  be  looked  forward  to  as  a  beautiful 
dream,  but  here  were  divine  sonship  and  human  brother- 
hood made  real  and  actual ;  here  was  the  explicit  announce- 
ment to  every  man,  on  the  basis  of  an  immediate  divine 
revelation,  of  his  rights  and  privileges  as  a  child  of  God, 
and  here  was  the  explicit  offer  to  every  man  of  the  great- 
est conceivable  blessings.  It  is  not  to  be  wondered  at 
that  the  Gospel  proved  itself  a  power  for  the  conversion  of 
multitudes,  especially  from  the  lower  classes  of  society.1 

But  the  appeal  which  Christianity  made  to  their  moral 
and  spiritual  natures  not  simply  moved  and  attracted  men, 
it  also  proved  a  real  and  permanent  power  for  righteous- 
ness in  their  lives.  It  would  be  a  mistake  to  suppose, 
even  where  the  Christian  life  was  thought  of  as  the  observ- 

1  Those  who  were  conscious  of  possessing  already  sufficient  moral  impulse 
and  power,  as  a  rule  cared  little  about  Christianity,  except  as  they  were 
attracted  to  it  hecause  of  its  observed  ability  to  create  virtue  in  the  most 
unpromising  quarters.  And  so  its  spread  for  some  generations  was  more 
rapid  among  the  lower  than  the  higher  classes. 

2L 


514  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

ance  of  the  law  of  God  and  salvation  as  the  reward  given 
for  faithful  endurance  in  such  observance  to  the  end,  that 
it  was  only  the  hope  of  reward  or  the  fear  of  punishment 
that  deterred  the  disciples  from  sin  and  kept  them  up  to 
their  duty.  The  truth  is,  that  the  sense  of  their  privilege 
and  responsibility  as  the  elect  people  of  God  had  much  to 
do  with  their  earnestness  and  faithfulness.  The  appeal 
is  made  in  the  writings  of  the  period  with  which  we  are 
dealing  oftener  to  higher  than  to  lower  motives  and  im- 
pulses. The  hope  of  reward  and  the  fear  of  punishment 
are  urged  not  infrequently,  but  stronger  and  more  con- 
stant emphasis  is  laid,  not  by  Paul  alone  but  by  others  as 
well,  upon  the  duty  of  Christians  to  walk  worthily  of 
their  calling  as  children  of  God  and  as  his  elect  people, 
to  be  true  to  their  opportunities  and  responsibilities,  to 
be  all  that  God  would  have  them  be,  and  thus  honor  both 
him  and  themselves.1  To  the  man  who  had  never  believed 
in  his  own  ethical  and  spiritual  worth  came  the  message 
that  God  desired  to  make  a  holy  man  of  him  and  fit  him 
for  communion  with  himself.  Such  a  message  appealed 
to  the  best  in  every  man,  and  laid  hold  mightily  upon 
whatever  of  divinity  he  possessed.  Responding  to  it,  a 
man  became  conscious  of  a  power  above  his  own,  of  im- 
pulses and  capabilities  hitherto  unsuspected,  and  in  them 
he  recognized  the  action  of  the  Spirit  of  God  and  believed 
himself  to  be  a  spiritual  man,  however  imperfectly  his 
newly  felt  power  might  work  itself  out  in  action. 

It  could  not  be  expected,  of  course,  that  the  Christians 
of  the  apostolic  age,  any  more  than  of  any  other  age, 
should  realize  completely  their  own  ideals.  Many  pas- 
sages in  our  sources  show  that  the  ethical  conditions 
of  the  church  at  large  were  not  all  that  they  should 
have  been  in  the  days  of  the  apostles.  Not  simply  the 
sins  which  beset  men  of  all  ages  and  climes,  but  sins 
to  which  that  age  was  particularly  prone,  made  their  way 
into  the  infant  church  and  called  forth  earnest  and  re- 

1  Cf.  on  the  one  hand  1  Cor.  vi.  9  sq. ;  Gal.  v.  21,  vi.  9 ;  Heb.  ii.  1  sq.,  iv.  1, 
vi.  10  et  passim;  2  Pet.  iii.  8;  Rev.  ii.  and  iii. ;  on  the  other  hand  Rom.  rii. 
1  sq. ;  1  Cor.  vi.  20 ;  Eph.  iv.  13  sq.,  v.  8  sq. ;  Phil.  ii.  13  sq. ;  Col.  i.  28,  iii.  1  sq. ; 
1  Thess.  iv.  1  sq. ;  1  Pet.  iv.  1  sq.,  and  Clement:  Ad  Cor.  30. 


THE   CHRISTIANITY   OF   THE   CHURCH    AT    LARGE      515 

peated  admonitions  from  all  the  writers  of  the  period. 
The  prevailing  vices  of  the  heathen  world  were  licen- 
tiousness and  intemperance,  vices  fostered  rather  than 
restrained  by  many  of  the  religious  cults  of  the  age,  and 
it  proved  exceedingly  difficult  for  converts  from  heathen- 
ism to  break  loose  from  their  past  and  to  repudiate  com- 
pletely the  habits  of  the  society  in  which  they  had  been 
trained,  and  in  the  midst  of  which  they  still  lived.  Many 
of  them  brought  their  vices  with  them  into  the  church,  and 
conditions  of  the  most  shocking  character  existed  in  some 
congregations.  Moreover,  the  looseness  of  life  which 
characterized  some  Christians  was  not  due  simply  to 
the  prevailing  immorality  of  the  age  and  the  difficulty 
in  overcoming  its  constantly  recurring  temptations;  the 
truth  is  that  the  principles  of  many  of  the  disciples  were 
such  as  to  make  various  questionable  practices  seem  indif- 
ferent and  harmless.  An  antinomianism  in  principle  as 
well  as  in  practice  grew  up  early  in  the  church,  on  the  basis 
chiefly  of  Paul's  teaching  of  the  Christian's  freedom  from 
law,  which  cost  the  apostle  much  anxiety  and  played  havoc 
in  many  quarters.  The  better  and  more  healthful  senti- 
ment of  the  church,  however,  was  against  such  antinomi- 
anism, and  it  was  ultimately  excluded,  though  it  had  a 
considerable  lease  of  life  in  some  of  the  Gnostic  sects  of 
the  second  century.1  But  though  antinomianism  was  ex- 
cluded, the  tendency  to  look  with  indifference  upon  many 
practices  which  others  regarded  as  sinful  continued  and 
gave  rise  to  difficulties  in  many  places  and  on  many  occa- 
sions. In  Corinth  the  question  of  eating  meat  offered  to 
idols  was  a  burning  one  for  a  time  at  any  rate,  and  Paul 
was  obliged  to  deal  with  it  in  one  of  his  epistles  at  con- 
siderable length.2  So  in  Rome,  differences  concerning 
meats  and  drinks  and  days  and  times  caused  much  trouble 
and  claimed  the  apostle's  attention  in  his  epistle  to  the 
Christians  of  that  city.3  All  such  questions  were  settled 
by  him  along  the  same  broad  lines,  the  principle  being  laid 
down  that  a  consideration  for  the  good  of  others  should 

1  See  above,  p.  502  sq.  2  1  Cor.  viii.    See  above,  p.  303  sq. 

8  Rom.  xiv.    See  above,  p.  336  sq. 


516  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE 

govern  one's  conduct  in  all  matters  of  the  kind.  But  the 
principle  was  too  broad  and  general  for  the  church  at  large 
of  subsequent  da}^s,  and  there  was  a  growing  tendency  to 
insist  upon  a  rigid  conformity  to  rule  on  the  part  of  all 
alike,  and  to  deny  so  great  liberty  of  conscience  as  Paul 
had  insisted  on. 

In  addition  to  such  sins  as  have  been  indicated, —  sins 
due  to  the  general  instincts  and  impulses  of  men,  or  to 
the  peculiar  conditions  that  prevailed  in  the  world  of  the 
period,  —  there  were  certain  specific  temptations  to  which 
the  disciples  were  liable  that  were  immediately  due  to 
Christianity  itself,  and  to  the  new  hopes  and  aspirations 
which  it  implanted  in  their  souls.  The  awakening  of  the 
ethical  and  spiritual  natures  of  the  new  converts  led  them 
often  into  spiritual  pride  and  self-assertion  which  threat- 
ened ruin  to  themselves  and  destruction  to  the  well-being 
of  the  church.  Against  such  spiritual  pride  Paul  and 
other  writers  of  the  age  uttered  frequent  warnings,  and 
the  quarrels  and  rivalries  to  which  it  inevitably  led  were 
a  constant  source  of  distress  and  anxiety.1  The  spirit  of 
other- worldlin ess,  moreover,  which  permeated  the  life  of 
the  primitive  believers,  was  a  spirit  which  could  easily 
be  carried  to  excess,  and  our  sources  show  that  it  actually 
was.  In  Thessalonica,  at  an  early  day,  Christians  were 
becoming  fanatical  and  were  neglecting  their  regular  occu- 
pations, to  the  great  scandal  of  their  neighbors  and  to  the 
ill  repute  of  the  church.2  It  was  such  manifestations  as 
these  that  called  forth  the  exhortations  to  diligence,  so- 
briety, and  quietness,  which  are  so  frequent  in  the  epistles 
of  the  New  Testament.8 

But  the  consciousness  of  belonging  to  a  higher  kingdom, 
controlled  by  principles  very  different  from  those  of  this 

1  Compare  the  condition  of  things  in  Corinth  as  depicted  in  1  Cor.  i.,  xii.- 
xiv. ;  see  above,  pp.  290,  307  sq. 

2  See  above,  p.  247. 

3  Cf.,  e.g.,  Eph.  iv.  28 ;  1  Thess.  iv.  11 ;  2  Thess.  iii.  10  sq. ;  1  Tim.  ii.  15 :  Titus 
ii.  2  sq. ;  1  Pet,  iv.  15.    The  principle  laid  down  by  Paul  in  2  Thess.  iii.  10 :  "  If 
any  will  not  work,  neither  let  him  eat,"  is  emphasized  also  in  the  Dldache, 
XII.    The  importance  attached  to  diligence  and  labor  among  the  early  Chris- 
tians was  undoubtedly  one  of  the  secrets  of  their  healthful  growth  and  their 
permanent  power. 


THE   CHRISTIANITY   OF   THE   CHURCH   AT    LARGE      517 

world,  led  many  Christians  to  desire  to  reform  the  present 
world  in  accordance  with  those  higher  principles,  to  repu- 
diate the  authority  of  the  existing  government,  to  do  away 
with  the  existing  social  inequalities,  to  assert  the  equal 
worth  of  all  classes  and  individuals,  to  free  the  slaves,  to 
elevate  the  position  of  women,  and  in  general  to  revolu- 
tionize society  and  transform  it  into  the  image  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven.  Against  all  such  desires  and  ten- 
dencies not  only  Paul  but  also  others  protested  with  ear- 
nestness, and  Paul  at  least  not  alone  on  the  ground  of 
expediency,  but  also  on  the  ground  of  right.1  It  is  God's 
will,  he  says,  that  the  world  shall  be  governed  as  it  is, 
and  he  himself  has  appointed  its  rulers  and  given  them 
their  power.2  It  is  his  will  also  that  the  inequalities  in 
social  rank  and  condition  shall  continue  to  exist,  and  that 
Christians  shall  be  content  with  their  position,  whatever 
it  may  be.  Whether  poor  or  rich,  whether  bond  or  free, 
every  man  is  to  remain  in  the  place  where  God  has  put 
him.  He  is  a  free  man  in  Christ,  but  that  freedom  does 
not  mean  any  change  in  his  social  status  or  environment.3 
Paul  is  very  emphatic  upon  this  point.  He  denies  une- 
quivocally that  the  Gospel  was  intended  to  work  any 
political  or  social  revolution  in  the  world.  And  Chris- 
tianity was  perhaps  saved  by  his  insistence  and  by  the 
insistence  of  other  leaders  of  the  church  from  becoming  a 
mere  social  agitation,  and  from  bringing  upon  itself,  as  it 
must  inevitably  have  done,  speedy  destruction. 

But  it  is  not  enough  to  speak  of  the  ethical  principles 
and  practice  of  the  early  Christians ;  their  life  was  above 
all  else  religious,  and  it  was  its  dominant  religiousness 
that  gave  it  its  peculiar  and  distinctive  character.  The 
controlling  fact  in  their  life  was  the  consciousness  of  being 
citizens  of  a  heavenly  kingdom  and  heirs  of  a  heavenly 
inheritance.4  They  might  go  about  their  ordinary  occupa- 
tions as  they  had  always  done  and  might  mingle  with  their 

1  Cf.,  e.g.,  Rom.  xiii.  1  sq. ;  1  Thess.  iv.  11 ;  2  Thess.  iii.  6  sq.;  2  Tim.  ii.  1 ; 
Titus  iii.  1  sq. ;  Heb.  xiii.  5;  1  Pet.  ii.  13. 

2  Rom.  xiii.  1.  8  Cf.,  e.g.,  1  Cor.  vii.  18  sq. 

*  Cf.,  e.g.,  Phil.  iii.  20;  Heb.  x.  34;  Jas.  iv'.  4;  1  Pet.  ii.  11;  1  John  ii.  IT, 
Rev.  xxii.  1  sq. 


518  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

neighbors  as  before,  but  they  were  conscious  all  the  time 
that  they  were  living  in  another  world,  and  that  the  forces 
and  influences  which  controlled  them  were  from  above 
This  consciousness  found  concrete  expression  in  the 
belief  that  the  Holy  Spirit  was  in  the  church,  guiding 
and  inspiring  the  followers  of  Christ,  and  endowing  them 
with  power  far  beyond  their  own.  From  the  very  begin- 
ning it  was  believed  that  the  Spirit  was  the  common  pos- 
session of  all  believers.  At  Pentecost  he  descended  upon 
the  assembled  disciples  and  they  all  spoke  with  tongues, 
and  Peter  held  out  the  promise  to  the  onlookers  whom  he 
addressed  on  that  occasion  that  they  too  should  receive 
the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  if  they  repented  and  were  bap- 
tized in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ.1  And  so  when  the  dis- 
ciples were  gathered  together  for  prayer  after  the  release 
of  Peter  and  John,  they  were  all  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost 
and  spoke  the  word  of  God  with  boldness.2  In  the  mani- 
fest presence  of  the  Spirit  was  found  the  chief  evidence 
that  the  promised  Messianic  age  had  already  dawned,  for 
it  was  generally  believed  among  the  Jews  that  that  age 
would  be  the  age  of  the  Spirit  in  an  eminent  sense.3  But 
what  was  true  of  the  early  disciples  of  Jerusalem  was  true 
also  of  the  church  at  large  throughout  the  greater  part  of 
the  apostolic  age.  Everywhere  the  presence  of  the  Spirit 
was  taken  for  granted,  and  his  operations  constituted  the 
most  characteristic  feature  in  the  life  of  the  church.4 
Those  operations  were  of  a  very  vivid  and  striking  char- 
acter. Speaking  with  tongues  and  prophecy  were  common, 
and  even  miracle-working  was  not  unknown,  and  such 
mysterious  phenomena  were  uniformly  attributed  to  the 
Spirit,  and  in  them  was  found  the  guarantee  of  his  activ- 
ity.5 The  influence  of  the  Spirit,  to  be  sure,  was  not 
exhausted  in  such  striking  operations.  It  was  believed, 

1  Acts  ii.  38. 

2  Acts  iv.  31 ;  cf .  also  v.  32,  x.  47,  xv.  8,  xix.  6,  and  see  above,  p.  71  sq. 

3  See  p.  62,  above. 

4  Cf.,  e.g.,  in  addition  to  Paul's  epistles  which  are  filled  with  references  to 
the  Spirit's  presence,  2  Tim.  i.  14;  Titus  iii.  5;  Heb.  vi.  4;  1  Pet.  i.  2,  iv.  14; 
1  John  iii.  24,  iv.  13;  Jude  19  sq. 

6  But  compare  the  remarks  made  on  p.  75  relative  to  the  connection  of  the 
Spirit  with  the  working  of  miracles  in  the  Book  of  Acts. 


THE   CHRISTIANITY   OF   THE   CHURCH   AT   LARGE      519 

at  any  rate  where  the  influence  of  Paul  was  felt,  that 
Christians  enjoyed  the  constant  aid  and  enlightenment  of 
the  Spirit,1  but  it  was  nevertheless  in  the  marvellous  phe- 
nomena indicated  that  his  activity  was  thought  chiefly 
to  manifest  itself,  and  hence  such  phenomena  were  valued 
very  highly  as  the  clearest  evidences  of  his  presence.2 
The  consequence  of  all  this  was  that  the  life  of  the 
primitive  Christians,  both  Jewish  and  Gentile,  bore  a 
very  peculiar  character.  Soberness  and  self-restraint  were 
at  a  discount,  and  uncontrolled  enthusiasm,  ecstasy,  and 
spiritual  abandonment  seemed  the  natural  expression  of 
the  Christian  life.  To  what  extent  the  disciples  indulged 
in  such  manifestations  of  their  possession  by  the  Spirit  in 
their  every-day  intercourse  with  their  friends  and  neigh- 
bors we  cannot  tell.  There  are  evidences  that  the  mani- 
festations were  frequent  enough  to  produce  a  considerable 
impression  upon  those  with  whom  they  came  in  contact. 
There  can  be  little  doubt,  in  fact,  that  the  reputation  which 
they  thus  acquired  of  being  under  the  sway  of  supernatural 
powers  did  much  to  enhance  the  influence  of  the  Gospel 
and  to  contribute  to  its  spread,  especially  among  the  less 
intelligent  and  more  superstitious  classes.  This  would 
be  eminently  the  case  in  connection  with  the  travelling 
missionaries,  who  were  endowed  with  the  Spirit  in  larger 
measure  than  most  of  their  fellows,  and  who  exercised 
everywhere  the  gifts  of  tongues,  of  prophecy,  of  miracle- 
working.3  On  the  other  hand,  these  manifestations  of  the 
activity  of  the  Spirit  doubtless  had  much  to  do  with  the 
reputation  for  folly  and  fanaticism  which  very  commonly 
attached  to  the  Christians  in  the  communities  in  which 
they  lived,  and  contributed  to  the  belief,  which  we  know 
was  widespread  at  an  early  day,  that  they  were  in  league 
with  demons,  and  were  devoted  to  the  practice  of  the  dark 
arts.4 

1  Cf.,  e.g.,  Heb.  vi.  4 ;  1  Pet.  i.  2 ;  1  John  iii.  24,  iv.  13;  Jude  20. 

2  Cf.,  e.g.,  Acts  viii.  18,  x.  45,  xix.  6;  and  1  Cor.  xii.  and  xiv. 

3Cf.  Mark  xvi.  17;  Acts  viii.  13,  xiv.  8  sq.,  xxviii.  3  sq.;  2  Cor.  xii.  12; 
Heb.  ii.  4. 

4  The  accusation  of  demoniacal  possession  was  brought  even  against  Jesus, 
as  we  learn  from  Mark  iii.  22 ;  and  so  Paul  was  pronounced  mad  by  Festus 


520  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

But  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit  were  exercised  especially  in 
the  religious  meetings  of  the  Christians.  Nowhere  else, 
in  fact,  was  there  such  opportunity  and  encouragement  for 
their  use.  In  possession  of  the  Spirit,  as  they  all  believed 
themselves  to  be,  it  was  when  they  came  together  to  wor- 
ship God  and  to  commune  with  each  other  that  their 
spiritual  enthusiasm  naturally  manifested  itself  most 
freely  and  unrestrainedly.  The  clearest  picture  we  have 
of  those  early  meetings  is  found  in  Paul's  First  Epistle  to 
the  Corinthians ;  and  the  picture  is  especially  significant 
and  valuable  because  it  shows  not  only  the  characteristic 
features  of  the  services  themselves,  but  also  the  principle 
underlying  them  and  the  results  to  which  the  unrestrained 
operation  of  that  principle  was  already  leading.  The  pict- 
ure, moreover,  is  evidently  true  not  for  Corinth  alone, 
but  for  the  church  at  large.  The  natural  temper  of  the 
Corinthians,  and  the  surroundings  in  which  they  lived, 
may  have  promoted  to  some  extent  the  excesses  into  which 
they  were  running,  but  such  exceptional  circumstances  do 
not  account  for  those  excesses ;  they  were,  in  fact,  exactly 
what  must  be  expected  wherever  Christians  were  conscious 
of  the  Spirit's  presence,  and  believed  that  he  must  make 
his  presence  known  in  marvellous  and  mysterious  ways. 
Corinth  certainly  was  not  alone  in  that  consciousness  and 
in  that  belief;  both  were  widespread  in  the  apostolic  age. 

The  most  notable  and  characteristic  feature  of  the  Corin- 
thian services,  as  described  by  Paul,  is  the  immediate 
activity  and  the  controlling  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
It  was  supposed  that  those  who  took  part  in  the  meetings 
did  it  not  on  their  own  impulse,  but  under  the  impulse  of 
the  Spirit,  and  that  all  their  utterances  consequently  were 
divinely  inspired.  The  Spirit  was  supposed  to  be  the  ac- 

(Acts  xxvi.  24),  very  likely  under  the  impression  of  the  same  kind  of  enwrapt 
and  enthusiastic  utterance  which  marked  the  addresses  of  the  prophets,  and 
aroused  in  believers  the  conviction  that  they  spoke  under  the  influence  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.  Cf.  also  1  Cor.  xiv.  23,  where  the  same  accusation  of 'mad- 
ness follows  the  speaking  with  tongues. 

The  reputation  of  being  adepts  in  the  arts  of  magic,  which  was  naturally 
prompted  not  only  by  their  exhibition  of  miraculous  power,  but  also  by  their 
prophesying,  had  not  a  little  to  do  with  the  persecutions  which  the  Christians 
had  to  suffer.  See  below,  p.  628  sq. 


THE   CHRISTIANITY   OF   THE   CHURCH   AT   LARGE      521 

tive  power;  the  Christians  that  spoke  were  simply  his  in- 
struments or  organs.  Whoever  had  a  psalm,  or  a  teaching, 
or  a  revelation,  or  a  tongue,  or  an  interpretation,1  received 
it  from  the  Spirit,  and  when  he  communicated  it  to  his 
brethren,  it  was  accepted  as  a  divine  and  not  a  mere  human 
utterance.  It  is  in  the  light  of  this  fact  that  the  freedom 
which  characterized  the  Corinthian  services  must  be  inter- 
preted. That  freedom  seems  at  first  sight  to  have  been 
complete.  The  confinement  of  the  right  to  participate  in 
the  meetings  to  a  certain  class  or  to  certain  regularly 
appointed  individuals  was  evidently  quite  unknown. 
Every  Christian  had  the  right  to  take  such  part  as  he 
wished,  and  the  woman's  right  was  equal  to  the  man's. 
But  the  recognition  of  that  right  was  not  due  to  the 
Corinthians'  recognition  of  the  equality  of  all  believers; 
it  was  due  to  their  reverence  for  the  Spirit  of  God.  A 
disciple  had  the  right  to  take  part  in  the  services  not 
because  he  was  a  Christian  possessed  of  equal  privileges 
with  all  his  brethren,  but  simply  because  he  was  an  organ 
of  the  Spirit,  and  it  was  the  Spirit's  will  that  he  should 
speak.  Unless  the  Spirit  prompted  him,  he  had  no  right 
whatever.  And  hence  the  freedom  which  is  so  character- 
istic a  mark  of  the  services  as  they  appear  in  Paul's  epis- 
tle was,  after  all,  decidedly  limited.  There  was  freedom 
only  for  the  Spirit,  not  for  men  as  men. 

But  it  was  their  belief  in  the  Spirit's  presence  and 
activity  that  led  the  Corinthians  to  value  most  highly,  as 
they  evidently  did,  those  gifts  which  were  most  striking 
and  mysterious  and  seemed  therefore  to  involve  a  larger 
measure  of  the  Spirit's  action.  Thus  the  gift  of  tongues, 
in  the  exercise  of  which  a  man  was  least  master  of  himself 
and  most  completely  under  the  influence  of  another  power, 
was  especially  esteemed.2  And  in  this  the  Corinthians 
were  not  alone.  So  pre-eminently  did  this  gift  seem 
to  reveal  the  action  of  the  Spirit,  that  the  speaker  with 
tongues  was  called  "The  Spiritual "  in  an  especial  sense.3 

1 1  Cor.  xiv.  26. 

2  Of.  1  Cor.  xiv.  2.    On  the  gift  of  tongues,  see  above,  p.  50  sq. 

3  Thus  Paul  apparently  uses  the  word  irvev/j.a.TiK6s  in  1  Cor.  xii.  1,  and  xiv. 
37 ;   and  as  his  own  conception  of  the  spiritual  man  was  very  different,  it 


522  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

This  of  course  does  not  mean  that  the  gift  of  tongues 
was  regarded  as  the  only  truly  spiritual  gift,  but  it  does 
indicate  that  it  was  looked  upon  as  peculiarly  such. 

But  the  Corinthians'  belief  in  the  presence  of  the  Spirit, 
and  in  his  controlling  activity  in  the  religious  services  of 
the  church,  led  naturally  and  almost  universally  to  just 
such  disorder  and  confusion  as  Paul  condemns  in  his 
epistle.  A  man  might  be  controlled  by  his  brethren.  If 
he  spoke  too  long  or  too  often,  if  he  interrupted  others 
that  were  speaking  or  disregarded  the  ordinary  rules  of 
decorum,  he  might  easily  be  checked  and  quiet  and  order- 
liness be  preserved.  But  when  it  was  the  Holy  Spirit 
who  was  prompting  his  utterances,  who  could  venture  to 
interfere  ?  Would  it  not  be  blasphemy  to  -put  restraints 
upon  the  divine  activity?  It  is  clear  that  the  question 
was  a  serious  one.  It  cannot  be  supposed  that  the  Corin- 
thian Christians  were  entirely  indifferent  to  the  condi- 
tion of  things  which  existed  among  them,  that  they  were 
quite  satisfied  with  the  confusion  and  disorder  that  reigned 
in  their  services  and  cared  nothing  about  it.  The  very 
fact  that  they  asked  for  light  from  Paul  touching  those 
endowed  with  the  Spirit,1  indicates  that  many  of  them,  at 
least,  were  troubled  about  the  matter.  The  confusion, 
therefore,  is  not  to  be  ascribed  to  bad  motives  on  the  part 
of  the  Corinthians,  as  if  they  were  governed  solely  by  per- 
sonal pride  or  ambition  or  jealousy  and  each  one  desired 
to  take  a  prominent  place  in  the  meetings,  to  display  his 
own  gift,  and  to  show  himself  superior  to  his  brethren. 
Doubtless  the  speakers  themselves  were  for  the  most  part 
entirely  honest  and  sincere,  and  deprecated  the  confusion 
and  disorder ;  but  when  the  Spirit  prompted  them  to  speak, 
what  could  they  do  ?  Must  they  not  obey  at  once  ?  Were 
they  not  mere  instruments  of  the  Spirit,  subject  completely 
to  his  control?  Evidently  it  was  not  merely  a  question 
between  true  and  pretended  inspiration,  or  between  the 

would  seem  that  he  must  have  followed  in  these  passages  the  usage  common 
among  his  readers  or  in  the  church  at  large.    Cf .  also  1  Thess.  v.  19 ;  and  see 
Gunkel :  Die  Wlrkungen  des  he'digen  Geistes,  S.  20  sq. ;  and  Heinrici :  Das 
erste  Sendschreiben  an  die  Korinthier,  S.  347  sq. 
l  Cf.  1  Cor.  xii.  1. 


THE  CHRISTIANITY   OF  THE  CHURCH   AT  LARGE      523 

worthy  and  unworthy  exercise  of  spiritual  functions ;  it 
was  a  question  of  conscience,  and  it  demanded  careful 
consideration. 

In  his  treatment  of  the  subject  Paul  lays  down  two 
principles  of  far-reaching  importance.  The  first  is,  that 
all  that  is  done  in  the  services  of  the  church  must  be  done 
primarily  for  the  edification  of  those  present.  The  pur- 
pose of  the  service,  according  to  Paul,  is  not  that  the 
individual  may  exercise  his  spiritual  gifts,  or  commune 
with  God  and  offer  prayer  and  praise  to  him,  but  that  all 
may  be  edified.  If  any  one  takes  part,  he  is  to  do  it  for 
the  sake  of  his  brethren ;  that  he  may  contribute  something 
which  will  bless  them.  And  so  only  such  gifts  are  to  be 
exercised,  and  only  under  such  conditions,  as  will  best 
promote  the  edification  of  all.  Thus  the  value  of  any  gift 
depends  not  upon  its  mysterious  and  marvellous  character, 
but  upon  its  usefulness.  But  the  application  of  such 
a  test  involved  of  course  a  great  change  in  the  Corin- 
thians' estimate  of  the  various  charismata.  Speaking  with 
tongues,  instead  of  being  the  most  important  of  all,  was 
relegated  by  Paul  to  an  inferior  place  and  the  exercise  of  it 
was  brought  within  narrow  limits,  and  even  forbidden  alto- 
gether unless  an  interpreter  were  present.1  This  does  not 
mean  that  Paul  intended  to  deny  the  spiritual  character  of 
the  gift  of  tongues ;  on  the  contrary,  he  saw  in  it  a  clear 
evidence  of  the  Spirit's  presence  and  activity,  and  he  con- 
sequently wished  that  all  his  readers  might  exercise  the 
gift,2  and  thanked  God  that  he  had  it  in  larger  measure 
than  any  of  them.3  But  in  spite  of  that,  he  would  rather 
in  the  church  speak  five  words  with  his  understanding 
that  he  might  instruct  others  also,  than  ten  thousand 
words  in  a  tongue.4  In  the  church,  that  is,  in  the  meet- 
ings of  the  Christians,  all  must  be  done  for  edification ; 
each  one  must  there  have  in  view  not  his  own  but  his 
brother's  profit.  Whatever  gifts,  therefore,  a  man  may 
exercise  at  home  or  in  private,  when  he  meets  with  his 
brethren,  let  him  eschew  everything  that  will  not  benefit 
and  bless  them. 

1 1  Cor.  xiv.  27  sq.       2  1  Cor.  xiv.  5.        3  1  Cor.  xiv.  18.       4  1  Cor.  xiv.  19. 


524  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE 

But  the  statement  of  this  principle  at  once  raises  a 
difficulty.  How  can  a  man  refuse  to  utter  what  the 
Spirit  gives  him?  How  can  he  refrain  from  speaking 
with  tongues  when  prompted  thereto,  even  though  there 
be  no  interpreter  present,  and  hoAV  can  he  refrain  from 
prophesying  when  the  revelation  is  imparted  to  him, 
even  though  another  is  prophesying  at  the  same  time? 
In  answer  to  this  question  Paul  lays  down  a  second  prin- 
ciple, no  less  important  and  far-reaching  than  the  first. 
"The  spirits  of  the  prophets  are  subject  to  the  prophets," 
he  says  in  vs.  32.  In  other  words,  an  inspired  man  not 
only  can,  but  has  the  right  to  utter  or  refrain  from  utter- 
ing that  which  is  given  him,  to  use  it  in  such  a  way  as 
his  judgment  dictates,  and  to  hold  it  in  subservience  to 
the  well-being  of  the  church.  The  utterance  is  a  startling 
one,  but  it  does  not  indicate  any  tendency  on  Paul's  part 
to  detract  from  the  dignity  of  the  Spirit  or  to  disparage 
his  gifts.  It  is  to  be  noticed  that  he  does  not  say  that  the 
spirits  of  the  prophets  are  subject  to  other  uninspired  men, 
but  only  that  they  are  subject  to  the  prophets  themselves, 
and  the  assumption  evidently  is  that  with  the  gift,  if  it 
be  a  true  gift,  goes  always  wisdom  to  guide  the  prophet 
in  its  use;  "for  God  is  not  a  God  of  confusion,  but  of 
peace,"1  and  he  cannot  intend  that  his  gifts  should  be 
employed  in  such  a  way  as  to  impede  instead  of  promote 
the  good  of  the  church.  But  the  principle  nevertheless  is 
of  far-reaching  consequence,  and  its  utterance  marks  an 
epoch  in  the  history  of  Christian  worship.  For  the  effect 
of  it,  in  association  with  the  other  principle  that  all  things 
are  for  edification,  must  evidently  be  in  the  end  to  subject 
the  action  of  the  Spirit  to  the  will  not  only  of  the  prophet 
himself,  but  also  of  the  church.  If  he  does  not  exercise 
discretion  in  the  use  of  his  spiritual  gifts,  the  church  has 
the  right  and  the  duty  to  exercise  it  for  him,  and  the 
complete  freedom  of  the  inspired  individual  must  thus 
yield  to  the  control  of  the  assembled  congregation.  The 
way  is  thus  prepared  for  a  regular  and  stereotyped  order 
of  services,  and  the  way  is  prepared  also  for  the  appoint- 

1 1  Cor.  xiv.  33. 


THE  CHRISTIANITY   OF  THE  CHURCH   AT   LARGE      525 

ment  of  certain  persons  to  take  charge  of  the  services  and 
to  see  that  the  established  routine  is  followed  and  all 
things  done  decently  and  in  order.  Such  a  stereotyping 
process  and  such  a  development  of  officialism  Paul  seems 
not  to  have  contemplated  in  writing  to  the  Corinthians, 
but  the  principles  enunciated  by  him  could  hardly  have  any 
other  effect  in  the  long  run.  And  our  sources  indicate 
that  the  effect  ensued  in  due  time.  In  Rome,  before  the 
end  of  the  first  century,  the  process  was  already  well  under 
way,  and  regularly  appointed  officials  were  in  control  of 
the  services.1  And  long  before  the  middle  of  the  second 
century,  the  original  freedom  seems  to  have  given  place 
almost  everywhere  to  the  bondage  of  liturgical  rules,  and 
instead  of  the  simple  informal  gatherings  of  the  ear- 
liest days,  regular  services  were  held,  in  which  a  fixed 
order  was  followed,  and  the  privilege  of  participation 
was  granted  only  to  certain  persons  and  only  under  well- 
defined  restrictions.2  In  1  Cor.  xiv.  33  Paul  implies  that 
the  principles  laid  down  in  the  preceding  context  were 
applicable  to  other  churches  as  well,  and  he  doubtless 
inculcated  them  elsewhere  as  need  arose.  And  so,  though 
the  development  was  due  in  part  to  natural  conditions  and 
needs  which  were  everywhere  similar,3  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  Paul's  influence  had  much  to  do  with  that  de- 
velopment, and  that  the  two  principles  first  enunciated,  so 
far  as  we  know,  by  him  were  ultimately  responsible  for  it. 
It  is  impossible,  of  course,  when  the  meetings  were  of 
such  an  informal  and  spontaneous  character  as  they  were 
in  the  earliest  days,  to  give  a  detailed  description  of  them. 
But  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  indicates  clearly 
enough  the  exercises  which  ordinarily  took  place.  The 
gift  of  tongues,  as  we  have  seen,  was  very  common  and 
especially  prized.  But  Paul's  direction  that  it  should  be 
employed  only  when  an  interpreter  was  present,  must 

1  Cf.  Clement:  Ad  Cor.  40-42,  44,  59  sq. 

2  Cf.,  e.g.,  Didache,  IX.  sq. ;  Justin  Martyr's  Apology,  I.  67;  and  Ignatius: 
Magn.  4,  7 ;  Trail.  7 ;  Smyr.  8. 

8  In  Thessalonica  the  excesses  to  which  the  free  exercise  of  spiritual  gifts 
was  leading  were  producing  a  reaction  against  their  exercise  (1  Thess.  v.  19, 
20),  and  what  was  true  there  may  well  have  heeii  true  elsewhere. 


526  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

ultimately,  though  not  immediately,  have  put  a  stop 
to  it.  Interpretation  involved  some  peculiar  rapport 
between  speaker  and  interpreter;  the  latter  must  be 
spiritually  endowed  as  well  as  the  former,  and  such 
reciprocal  endowment  cannot  have  been  general  at  any 
time  and  must  have  grown  increasingly  uncommon. 
And  so  it  is  not  surprising  that  tongues  ceased,  as  they 
seem  to  have  done,  at  a  comparatively  early  day. 

Prophesying,  too,  usually  constituted  a  part  of  the  ser- 
vice.1 It  was  as  truly  a  spiritual  act  as  the  speaking  with 
tongues,  being  nothing  else  than  the  utterance  of  revela- 
tions received  directly  from  God.  Whether  those  revela- 
tions had  to  do  with  the  past,  the  present,  or  the  future, 
with  belief  or  with  conduct,  with  the  individual  or  with 
the  church,  the  act  was  the  same.  Whatever  was  imme- 
diately imparted  to  a  man  by  the  Spirit,  and  uttered  by 
him  under  the  Spirit's  influence,  was  prophecy.2  The  gift 
of  prophecy  was  distinguished  from  the  gift  of  tongues  by 
the  fact  that  the  person  exercising  it,  though  he  might  be 
under  great  excitement,  was  entirely  aware  of  what  he 
was  saying  and  of  what  was  going  on  about  him.  He  was 
not  beside  himself,  or  deprived  of  consciousness  in  any 
such  way  as  the  speaker  with  tongues.  Moreover,  his  ut- 
terances were  intelligible  both  to  himself  and  to  others.3 

1  It  is  to  prophecy  that  Paul  refers  in  1  Cor.  xiv.  26,  when  he  uses  the  word 
"  revelation  "  (dTro/cdXui/'ts).     Cf.  also  the  whole  of  the  fourteenth  chapter. 

2  Examples  of  various  kinds  of  prophecy  are  found  in  the  New  Testament. 
Agabus  foretells  a  famine  which  leads  the  brethren  of  Antioch  to  send  help  to 
the  Mother  Church  (Acts  xi.  28) .    He  also  announces  to  Paul  the  fate  that  is  to 
befall  him  in  Jerusalem  (xxi.  11).    The  same  kind  of  a  prophetic  warning  is 
given  also  by  the  disciples  of  Tyre  (xxi.  4).    So  Paul  frequently  received 
divine  direction  at  critical  junctures  (cf.  Gal.  ii.  2;  Acts  xvi.  6,  9),  and  the 
same  was  true  of  Peter  and  Philip  (Acts  x.  and  viii.).    Paul  had,  moreover, 
many  visions  and  revelations  (see,  for  instance,  2  Cor.  xii.  1  sq.  and  compare 
the  vision  of  Stephen,  Acts  vii.  56) ;  and  indeed  his  whole  Gospel  rested  upon 
a  revelation,  and  was  thus  an  inspired  Gospel.    He  received  announcements 
of  God's  will,  also,  for  the  guidance  of  the  church  (compare,  for  instance, 

1  Cor.  vii.  10,  xiv.  37)  and  was  granted  knowledge  of  the  future  for  the 
instruction  and  encouragement  of  his  brethren  (compare  1  Cor.  xv.  23,  50; 

2  Thess.  ii.  3).    The  most  notable  example  of  prophecy  in  the  New  Testament 
is  the  Apocalypse,  which  purports  to  be  from  beginning  to  end  the  record  of  a 
revelation  vouchsafed  by  Christ  to  the  author,  while  he  was  in  the  Spirit 
(Rev.  i.  1,  10). 

8  Tongues  required  interpretation,  prophecy  did  not  (cf.  1  Cor.  xiv.  2  sq., 
28  sq.). 


THE  CHRISTIANITY   OF   THE   CHURCH    AT   LARGE      527 

The  prophet  was  thus  at  the  same  time  a  teacher,  for  the 
revelations  which  he  received  and  uttered  were  for  the 
instruction  of  those  to  whom  he  spoke;  but  he  differed 
from  the  ordinary  teacher  in  that  he  imparted  not  what  he 
had  acquired  by  study  or  thought  or  reflection,  but  only 
what  was  directly  given  him,  only  what  he  saw  or  heard. 
He  \vas  simply  the  mouthpiece  of  the  Spirit,  and  his  own 
wisdom  and  attainments  played  no  part  in  the  matter. 

It  was  because  the  utterances  of  the  prophet  were  fitted 
to  instruct  and  edify  others,  that  Paul  ranked  the  gift  of 
prophecy  so  much  higher  than  the  gift  of  tongues.  "He 
that  speaketh  in  a  tongue,  edifieth  himself,  but  he  that 
prophesieth,  edifieth  the  cl\urch,"  he  says  in  1  Cor.  xiv. 
4,  and  while  he  expresses  the  wish  that  all  might  speak 
with  tongues,  he  is  much  more  anxious  that  all  should 
prophesy.1  In  prophecy  he  sees  the  greatest  power,  not 
only  for  the  upbuilding  of  the  saints,  but  also  for  the 
conviction  and  conversion  of  unbelievers.2  The  gift  upon 
which  Paul  lays  such  emphasis  was  a  very  common  one  in 
the  apostolic  age.  There  were  prophets  not  only  in  Paul's 
churches,  but  also  in  Jerusalem,  Antioch,  and  Csesarea.3 
Moreover,  the  gift  was  confined  to  no  particular  class  of 
Christians.  Women  as  well  as  men  prophesied  in  Cor- 
inth,4 and  Paul's  wish  that  all  might  prophesy,  shows  that 
the  gift  was  not  the  prerogative  of  a  special  order  or  office.5 

But  when  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit  were  valued  so  highly 
as  they  were  in  those  early  days,  it  was  natural  that  there 
should  be  some  who  pretended  to  gifts  which  they  did  not 

1 1  Cor.  xiv.  5.  3  Acts  xi.  27,  xiii.  1,  xv.  32,  xxi.  9. 

2  1  Cor.  xiv.  24.  4  1  Cor.  xi.  5 ;  cf.  also  Acts  xxi.  9. 

5  1  Cor.  xiv.  5,  24,  31 ;  cf .  also  Acts  xix.  G.  It  is  one  of  the  most  notable 
signs  of  the  enthusiastic  spiritual  character  of  the  early  church  and  of  its 
vivid  consciousness  of  being  under  direct  divine  control  and  in  intimate  com- 
munion with  God,  that  the  belief  in  prophecy  was  universal  and  the  exercise 
of  the  gift  so  widespread.  Even  in  the  second  century  when  the  primitive 
enthusiasm  and  spontaneity  had  already  largely  passed  away,  Christians  still 
believed  in  the  continuation  of  prophecy  and  there  were  still  prophets  in  the 
church  (cf.,  e.g.,  Didache,  XI. ;  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  XVI. ;  Ignatius:  Phil.  1 ; 
Hernias:  Mand.  XI.;  Justin:  Dial.  81,  88;  and  see  Harnack's  edition  of 
the  Didache  in  the  Texte  and  Untersuchungen,  II.  1,  S.  123. 

Only  under  the  pressure  of  its  controversy  with  the  Montanists  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  second  century  did  the  church  at  large  finally  come  to  the 
conclusion  that  prophecy  had  ceased. 


528  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

possess,  and  when  all  were  under  excitement  and  in  con- 
stant expectation  of  receiving  inspiration  from  on  high, 
it  was  inevitable  that  some  should  imagine  themselves 
prompted  by  the  Spirit  when  they  were  not.  It  was  there- 
fore important  that  there  should  be  a  means  of  determining 
whether  a  speaker  was  really  under  the  influence  of  the 
Spirit,  and  this  was  especially  needful  in  connection  with 
the  prophets,  whose  utterances  purported  to  be  the  word 
of  God  for  the  guidance  and  instruction  of  their  brethren. 
And  so  Paul,  in  1  Cor.  xiv.  29,  directs  that  while  the 
prophets  are  speaking  the  others  shall  discern,  that  is, 
shall  determine  whether  their  utterances  are  really  the 
Spirit's  or  only  their  own;  and  in  xii.  3  he  gives  a  test 
by  which  the  true  and  the  false  prophet  may  be  determined : 
"No  man  speaking  in  the  Spirit  of  God  saith,  Jesus  is 
anathema ;  and  no  man  can  say,  Jesus  is  Lord,  but  in  the 
Holy  Spirit."  This  can  mean  nothing  else  than  that  if  a 
man  is  truly  inspired,  all  that  he  says  will  be  for  the  glory 
of  Christ  and  not  the  reverse.1  And  so  the  character  of 
that  which  is  uttered  in  any  meeting  by  a  prophet  is  to 
be  weighed  by  his  brethren  before  its  divine  origin  is  ad- 
mitted. If  there  is  in  it  anything  unchristian  or  anything 
that  detracts  from  the  honor  of  Christ,  it  cannot  be  accepted 
as  God's  word.2  But  evidently  no  test  could  be  given 
which  would  enable  Christians  to  determine  absolutely  in 
every  case  whether  the  Spirit  of  God  was  speaking  or  only 
a  man,  and  hence  some  were  supposed  to  be  endowed  with 
a  special  charisma  which  made  it  possible  for  them  to  dis- 
tinguish the  false  from  the  true :  the  charisma  of  "  discern- 
ing of  Spirits,"  as  Paul  calls  it.8 

In  addition  to  prophecy  and  speaking  with  tongues,  Paul 
mentions  teaching  as  another  part  of  the  religious  ser- 
vices.4 Prophecy  was  itself  a  form  of  teaching,  but  in  1 
Cor.  xiv.  6  and  26,  teaching  is  distinguished  from  prophecy 

1  A  similar  though  somewhat  more  specific  test  is  given  in  1  John  iv.  2  (cf . 
also  Gal.  i.  8) .    In  the  Didache  (XI.)  the  prophet's  conduct  is  made  a  test  of  his 
divine  calling,  but  it  is  implied  in  the  beginning  of  the  same  chapter  that  the 
agreement  of  his  teaching  with  that  which  the  readers  have  already  received 
must  also  be  taken  into  account. 

2  Cf.  also  1  Thess.  v.  21.  *  1  Cor.  xii.  10.  4  1  Cor.  xiv.  2«. 


THE   CHRISTIANITY    OF   THE   CHURCH   AT   LARGE      529 

as  a  special  function,  and  the  gift  of  teaching  is  likewise 
distinguished  from  the  gift  of  prophecy  in  1  Cor.  xii.  8  sq. 
and  Rom.  xii.  6  sq.1  The  difference  between  the  two  lay 
in  the  fact  that  while  prophecy  was  the  utterance  of  a  reve- 
lation received  directly  from  God,  teaching,  specifically  so 
called,  was  the  utterance  of  that  which  one  had  gained  by 
thought  and  reflection.  The  teacher  might  be  led  and 
guided  by  the  Spirit, —  indeed,  he  must  be,  if  he  were  to 
be  a  true  teacher  and  his  teaching  truly  spiritual, —  but 
what  he  said  was  in  a  real  sense  his  own.  He  was  thus 
an  inspired  man,  but  not  a  mere  mouthpiece  of  the  Spirit. 
It  was  the  especial  function  of  the  man  endowed  with  the 
gift  of  teaching  to  expound  and  apply  and  draw  lessons 
from  the  revelations  of  God  imparted  either  to  the  ancient 
prophets  or  to  the  prophets  of  the  present,  and  he  might 
deal  with  the  simplest  matters  or  delve  deep  into  the  mys- 
teries of  divine  truth.  His  gift  might  not  display  the 
immediate  activity  of  the  Spirit  to  the  same  extent  as  the 
gift  of  tongues  or  of  prophecy,  but  its  usefulness  was  very 
great,  as  Paul  himself  indicates  in  more  than  one  passage.2 
It  was  largely  by  its  exercise  that  the  church  was  enabled 
to  preserve  its  balance  and  was  kept  from  running  into 
all  sorts  of  spiritual  excesses  and  eccentricities.  The 
quietness  and  soberness  which  naturally  attached  to  it 
constituted  an  excellent  counterpoise  to  the  excitement 
and  frenzy  which  attended  prophecy  and  speaking  with 
tongues.  The  exercise  of  the  gift  in  the  service  invited 
those  present  to  thought  and  reflection,  and  enabled  them 
to  understand  better  both  themselves  and  the  Gospel,  and 
to  make  a  wiser  use  of  the  spiritual  riches  offered  them 
by  the  prophets.  It  was,  indeed,  only  as  they  were  care- 
fully instructed  in  the  meaning  of  the  Gospel  that  they 
were  competent  to  test  the  truth  of  the  utterances  of  the 
prophets,  and  to  estimate  their  worth.  Paul's  epistles  are 
very  largely  devoted  to  the  impartation  of  instruction  which 
his  teaching  charisma  fitted  him  to  give,  and  in  all  of  them 

1  Cf.  also  1  Cor.  xii.  28,  and  Eph.  iv.  11,  where  teachers  are  distinguished 
from  prophets. 

2  Cf.  1  Cor.  xiv.  6;  also  xii.  8,  and  xiv.  26,  in  both  of  which  passages  teach- 
ing is  mentioned  before  prophecy. 


530  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

he  assumes  that  his  readers  have  received  such  instruction 
from  the  beginning.  The  common  conceptions  of  Chris- 
tianity which  prevailed  in  the  church,  and  some  of  which 
finally  crystallized  into  the  creeds  and  confessions  of  the 
second  and  subsequent  centuries,  were  much  more  largely 
the  fruit  of  thought  and  reflection  than  of  immediate  reve- 
lation. Teaching,  specifically  so  called,  had  more  to  do 
with  them  than  prophecy.  And  yet  though  the  gift  of 
teaching  was  so  useful,  and  though  its  permanent  influence 
upon  the  life  and  thought  of  Christendom  was  so  great,  in 
a  church  like  that  of  Corinth,  where  so  much  was  made  of 
those  gifts  which  were  most  mysterious  and  marvellous 
(and  Corinth  was  not  unique  in  this  respect),  the  gift  of 
teaching  must  have  seemed  of  comparatively  little  value, 
and  its  exercise  was  very  likely  completely  overshadowed 
by  tongues  and  prophecy.  There  can  have  been  little 
opportunity  for  quiet  instruction  and  little  inclination  to 
listen  to  it  where  there  was  such  activity  and  where  so 
many  were  clamoring  for  utterance  as  in  the  meetings 
described  by  Paul.  But  when  the  principles  laid  down 
by  Paul  for  the  conduct  of  the  services  were  put  into 
practice,  the  teaching  function  found  a  much  larger  exer- 
cise, and  as  the  early  enthusiasm  abated  somewhat  and 
spiritual  ecstasy  grew  less  general  and  constant,  the  influ- 
ence of  the  man  endowed  with  the  teaching  charisma 
rapidly  increased. 

Other  exercises  which  commonly  constituted  a  part  of 
the  services  of  the  early  Christians  were  praise  and  prayer. 
In  1  Cor.  xiv.  26  Paul  mentions  praise  first  of  all,  and 
from  the  word  he  uses,1  and  the  way  in  which  he  speaks 
of  it,  it  is  evident  that  it  took  the  form  ordinarily  of  a 
psalm,  which  was  sung  or  spoken  by  this  or  that  individual 
believer  under  the  impulse  of  the  Spirit.  The  psalm  of 
praise  might  be  unintelligible,  constituting  simply  a  form 
of  the  speaking  with  tongues,  or  it  might  promote  the 
edification  of  those  present,  just  as  prophecy  and  teaching 
did.2  In  either  case  it  was  the  utterance  of  a  man  spiritu- 
ally endowed,  and  it  formed  his  contribution  to  the  service. 

3  Cf.  1  Cor.  xiv.  15. 


THE    CHRISTIANITY    OF    THE    CHURCH    AT   LARGE      531 

Paul  does  not  indicate  whether  the  psalm  was  ordinarily 
sung  or  simply  spoken.  It  was  as  much  a  psalm  in  the 
one  case  as  in  the  other,  and  doubtless  the  practice  varied 
according  to  individual  tastes  and  talents.  That  singing 
was  common  is  clear  from  Eph.  v.  19  and  Col.  iii.  16,  as 
well  as  from  Pliny's  epistle  to  Trajan,  in  which  he  says 
that  the  Christians  were  accustomed  "to  sing  responsively 
a  song  unto  Christ  as  God."1  The  psalms  thus  sung  or 
spoken  were  doubtless  in  some  cases  new  and  original  with 
those  that  uttered  them,  in  other  cases  old  and  familiar  to 
all.  Their  spiritual  character  and  their  fitness  to  voice 
one's  praise  did  not  depend  upon  their  originality.  A 
few  examples  of  early  Christian  hymns  are  found  in  the 
New  Testament,  some  of  them  without  doubt  composed 
by  the  writers  themselves  with  an  immediate  reference  to 
the  subject  in  hand,  others  possibly  already  current  in  the 
church.2 

Paul  does  not  mention  prayer  as  distinguished  from 
praise  in  1  Cor.  xiv.  26,  but  that  it  must  have  consti- 
tuted a  part  of  every  religious  service  of  the  early  Chris- 
tians goes  without  saying,3  and  in  xi.  4  it  is  explicitly 
referred  to,  and  in  xiv.  15  is  expressly  distinguished  from 
praise.  Like  the  latter,  it  might  be  intelligible,  and  thus 
edifying  to  all  present,  or  it  might  be  simply  a  form  of  the 
speaking  with  tongues,  and  as  such  of  benefit  to  no  one 
except  the  man  himself; 4  but  in  either  case  it  was  thought 
of,  like  all  the  other  exercises,  as  prompted  by  the  Spirit, 
and  of  course  the  same  freedom  attached  to  it  as  to  them. 
Any  one  might  offer  prayer  at  any  time  and  in  any  form, 
just  as  he  might  speak  with  tongues  or  prophesy.  The 
earliest  set  form  of  Christian  prayer  known  to  us  is  the 
Lord's  prayer,  which  is  reported  only  by  two  of  the  evan- 
gelists, Matthew  and  Luke,  but  of  whose  authenticity 

1  Carmenque  christo  quasi  deo  dicere  secum  invicem;  in  epistle  No.  96 
(07)  of  Pliny's  collected  epistles,  written  in  110  or  111  A.D.    See  my  transla- 
tion of  Eusebius,  p.  165. 

2  Cf.,  e.g.,  Rev.  xix.  1-3,  6  sq.,  xi.  17  sq.,  iv.  11,  v.  9-13,  xv.  3  sq.    For  other 
songs  see  Luke  i.  40  sq.,  (J8  sq.,  ii.  14,  29  sq.     Upon  the  whole  subject  see 
Weizsacker,  I.e.  S.  557  sq.  (Eng.  Trans.,  Vol.  II.  p.  259  sq.). 

3  Cf.  Acts  ii.  42;  also  2  Cor.  i.  11,  where  common  prayer  is  spoken  of. 
41  Cor.  xiv.  14, 


532  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

there  can  be  no  doubt.  It  is  possible  that  the  Aramaic 
word  "Abba,"  in  Rom.  viii.  15  and  Gal.  iv.  6,  points  to 
its  common  use  in  Paul's  day.1  At  any  rate,  it  was  gener- 
ally employed  in  the  second  century,  if  not  already  in  the 
first.  The  earliest  distinct  reference  to  it  outside  of  the 
Gospels  is  in  the  Teaching  of  the  Apostles,  where  it  is 
repeated  in  full,  and  Christians  are  directed  to  pray  thus 
three  times  a  day.2  In  the  same  work  other  set  forms 
of  prayer  are  given,  to  be  used  in  connection  with  the 
eucharistic  service,3  but  it  is  expressly  stipulated  that  the 
prophets  shall  not  be  bound  by  such  forms,  but  shall  be 
permitted  to  give  thanks  at  as  great  length  as  they  please. 
This  stipulation  is  very  significant,  for  it  shows  how  pre- 
scribed forms  of  prayer  gradually  took  the  place  of  the  free 
prayers  of  the  earliest  days.  Prayer  being  regarded  as  a 
spiritual  exercise  indulged  in  only  under  the  prompting 
of  the  Spirit,  it  became  necessary  in  the  services,  as  the 
consciousness  of  inspiration  grew  less  general,  to  depend 
for  it,  as  well  as  for  prophecy  and  teaching,  upon  certain 
peculiarly  favored  individuals,  and  in  their  absence  to 
repeat  the  prayers  offered  by  them  when  present.  The 
forms  prescribed  in  the  Didache  for  use  in  the  absence  of 
prophets  were  without  doubt  regarded  as  inspired  utter- 
ances, and  the  repetition  of  them  was  thought  to  be  the 
best  that  could  be  done  when  genuine  inspiration  for  new 
and  spontaneous  prayer  was  lacking.4 

In  addition  to  prayer,  praise,  teaching,  prophecy,  and 
tongues,  there  is  reason  to  suppose  that  the  reading  of  the 
Scriptures  also  constituted  commonly  a  part  of  the  services 
of  the  early  Christians.  Such  reading  is  not  mentioned 
in  1  Cor.  xiv.  26,  but  the  omission  of  a  specific  reference 

1  See  Weizsacker,  I.e.  S.  556  sq.  (Eng.  Trans.,  Vol.  II.  p.  258  sq.). 

2  Didache,  VIII.     See  the  notes  in  loc.  in  Harnack's  edition  of  the  Didache 
(Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  II.  1). 

*  Didache,  IX.  sq. 

*  In  Clement's  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  chaps.  59-61 ,  an  extended  prayer  is 
given  which  was  doubtless  in  common  use  in  the  church  of  Rome,  for  it  bears 
no  relation  to  the  object  of  the  epistle,  and  can  hardly  have  been  composed  by 
Clement  for  the  occasion.    According  to  Justin  (Apol.  I.  67),  the  president,  that 
is,  evidently,  the  bishop,  who  was  in  charge  of  the  service  prayed  in  such  form 
as  he  pleased.    But  before  the  end  of  the  second,  century  an  established  liturgy 
was  almost  everywhere  in  use. 


THE   CHRISTIANITY   OF   THE  CHURCH   AT  LARGE      533 

to  prayer  in  the  same  passage  shows  that  the  enumeration 
was  not  intended  to  be  exhaustive,  and  Paul's  silence 
therefore  cannot  be  urged  as  a  proof  that  the  Scriptures 
were  not  read  in  the  services  of  the  Corinthian  church.1 
There  is  the  same  lack  of  reference  to  the  matter  in  all 
our  first  century  sources,2  but  the  familiar  acquaintance 
with  the  Old  Testament  which  Paul  and  other  early  writers 
assume  on  the  part  of  those  whom  they  address,  and  the 
emphasis  upon  its  divine  character  and  upon  its  value  both 
as  law  and  prophecy,  which  was  so  widespread  from  the 
beginning,  among  Gentile  as  well  as  Jewish  Christians, 
make  it  practically  certain  that  the  Scriptures  were  dili- 
gently read  and  expounded  in  their  meetings.3  Justin 
Martyr  tells  us  that  they  were  thus  read  in  his  day,4  and 
there  is  every  reason  to  think  that  the  custom  existed  from 
the  beginning. 

Least  of  all  the  exercises  which  have  been  described 
could  the  reading  of  the  Scriptures  be  regarded  as  a  spir- 
itual function.  And  yet  even  here  the  influence  of  the 
Spirit  must  have  been  recognized,  prompting  a  Christian 
to  impart  something  from  the  word  of  God  for  the  instruc- 
tion and  edification  of  those  present,  and  quickening  his 
appreciation  and  apprehension  of  its  meaning.  A  pre- 
scribed exercise  in  the  service  the  reading  can  hardly  have 
been  in  the  early  days  of  informality  and  freedom.  It 
must  have  been,  like  all  the  other  functions,  the  voluntary 
contribution  of  this  or  that  brother ;  and  it  was  doubtless 
by  those  endowed  with  the  gift  of  teaching  that  the  Script- 
ures were  most  commonly  employed  in  the  meetings. 
Upon  selected  passages,  either  read  or  repeated  from  mem- 
ory, they  very  likely  based  much  of  the  instruction  which 

1  The  fact  that  reading  was  not  naturally  subject  to  abuse,  may  have  led  to 
the  omission  of  it  in  1  Cor.  xiv.  26. 

2  But  see  Acts  i.  20,  iv.  25,  xv.  10  sq. 

8  Cf.,  e.g.,  in  the  epistles  of  Paul  such  passages  as  Rom.  vii.  1 ;  1  Cor.  ix.  18, 
xiv.  21,  34,  xv.  1  sq. ;  2  Cor.  vi.  16  sq. ;  Gal.  iv.  26.  The  large  use  of  the  Old 
Testament  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  in  1  Peter,  and  in  Clement's  Epistle 
to  the  Corinthians  is  also  to  be  noticed.  Especially  significant  are  the  words 
of  Clement  in  chap.  5'i :  "  For  ye  know  and  know  well  the  sacred  Scriptures, 
dearly  beloved,  and  ye  have  searched  into  the  oracles  of  God "  (cf.  also 
chap.  62). 

4  Justin's  Apology,  I.  67, 


534  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

they  had  to  impart  to  their  fellows.  Thus  is  best  ex- 
plained the  fact  that  the  familiarity  of  the  church  at  large 
with  the  Old  Testament  seems  to  have  been  confined  in 
the  main  to  certain  portions  of  it,  particularly  to  such 
portions  as  could  be  understood  in  a  Messianic  sense.  A 
body  of  Messianic  predictions  was  thus  brought  together  at 
an  early  day,  and  nearly  all  the  apologetic  writers  of  the 
second  and  subsequent  centuries  drew  largely  upon  it,  the 
same  passages  recurring  again  and  again  in  early  Christian 
literature,  and  nearly  always  with  the  same  interpretations. 
In  addition  to  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  there  is 
reason  to  think  that  records  of  Christ's  life,  and  especially 
of  his  words,  were  widely  read  in  the  meetings  of  the 
primitive  Christians.  We  know  that  such  records  were 
composed  at  an  early  day,  and  that  some  of  them  were 
made  use  of  by  the  authors  of  our  Gospels ; l  and  as  the 
words  of  Christ  were  everywhere  recognized  as  possessing 
authority  in  the  church,2  it  is  altogether  probable  that 
Christians  were  increasingly  careful  to  acquaint  them- 
selves and  their  brethren  with  those  words  as  transmitted 
either  orally  or  in  writing.  At  the  same  time  it  would 
be  a  grave  mistake  to  suppose  that  our  Gospels  or  any 
other  Gospel  records  were  looked  upon  as  "  Scripture " 
during  the  period  with  which  we  are  dealing.  The  only 
"Scripture,"  that  is,  the  only  sacred  and  authoritative 
text  which  the  church  had,  was  the  Jewish  Bible.  The 
ascription  to  the  records  which  contained  them  of  the 
sacredness  and  authority  which  attached  to  Christ's  words 
was  not  thought  of  until  well  on  in  the  second  century. 
Not  because  they  were  written,  but  because  they  had  fallen 
from  Christ's  lips,  were  his  words  authoritative,  and  their 
authority  was  not  in  the  least  diminished  because  they 
were  transmitted  orally  rather  than  in  writing.  Indeed, 
Papias  valued  the  oral  traditions  more  highly  than  the 
written  records,  and  in  this  he  doubtless  voiced  the  senti- 
ment of  many  of  his  contemporaries.3  So  far,  therefore, 

1  See  below,  p.  569  sq.  2  Cf.,  e.g.,  1  Cor.  vii.  10,  ix.  14,  xi.  23. 

8  Cf.  Eusebius:  H.E.  III.  39,  4.  I  embrace  this  opportunity  to  correct  the 
interpretation  of  Papias'  words  given  in  my  edition  of  Eusebius,  Bk.  III. 
chap.  39,  note  11.  I  am  now  convinced  that  the  words  &K  TUV  Bi^SX/wi/  refer  not, 


THE   CHRISTIANITY   OF  THE  CHURCH  AT   LARGE      535 

as  such  Gospel  records  were  read  or  quoted  in  the  services 
of  the  early  Christians,  they  were  regarded  not  as  the 
revealed  and  inspired  word  of  God,  but  simply  as  sources 
from  which  a  knowledge  of  Christ's  utterances  or  of  his 
deeds  might  be  drawn.  That  the  epistles  of  Paul  were 
also  read  to  the  assembled  Christians  in  the  various 
churches  addressed  is  clear  from  such  passages  as  1  Thess. 
v.  27  and  Col.  iv.  16.  That  they  must  have  been  thus  read 
goes,  indeed,  without  saying.  And  the  same  is  equally 
true  of  other  epistles,  whether  written  by  one  church  to 
another,1  or  by  apostles,  prophets,  and  other  men  of  like 
repute.2  The  public  reading  of  such  epistles  and  other 
writings  did  not,  of  course,  mean  that  they  were  regarded 
as  Scripture  and  put  upon  the  same  plane  with  the  Jewish 
Bible.  Many  of  them  might  in  time  acquire  such  canoni- 
cal dignity  and  authority,  but  during  the  period  with 
which  we  are  dealing  there  was  no  thought  of  such  a 
thing.  As  already  remarked,  the  only  "  Scripture  "  was  the 
traditional  Jewish  canon,  and  neither  gospels  nor  epistles 
nor  apocalypses  found  in  those  early  days  a  place  alongside 
of  the  old  law  and  prophets.3 

We  have  been  dealing  thus  far  only  with  those  parts  of 
the  religious  service  in  which  there  was  a  mutual  inter- 
change of  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit,  or  in  which  the  impart- 
ing of  inspiration,  instruction,  and  edification  was  the 

as  maintained  by  Lightfoot,  to  written  expositions  or  interpretations  of  the 
utterances  of  Christ,  but  to  the  Gospel  records  themselves  which  contained 
such  utterances. 

1  As,  for  instance,  the  epistle  of  the  church  of  Rome  to  the  church  of  Corinth, 
commonly  known  as  Clement's  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  which  was 
read  in  the  church  of  Corinth  on  the  Lord's  day  as  late  as  170  A.D.,  as  was 
also  the  later  epistle  of  the  same  church,  written  by  the  hand  of  Bishop  Soter. 
See  Eusebius :  H.E.  IV.  23,  11. 

2  Not  only  the  epistles  which  are  contained  in  our  New  Testament  canon, 
including  the  Apocalypse  (compare  Rev.  i.  3,  and  xxii.  16, 18),  were  thus  read, 
but  also  many  other  epistles  and  works  of  various  kinds.    Thus,  for  instance, 
the  Shepherd  of  Hennas  was  widely  read  in  the  public  services  in  the  second 
century  (compare  Vis.  II.  4) ,  not  to  mention  the  epistles  of  Barnabas,  Ignatius, 
Polycarp,  and  many  others. 

8  The  implied  inclusion  of  Paul's  epistles  in  the  "  Scriptures  "  by  the  author 
of  2  Peter  (iii.  16)-  is  one  of  the  many  signs  of  the  late  date  of  that  epistle  (see 
below,  p.  602).  Neither  Paul's  letters  nor  any  of  the  other  writings  which  are 
contained  in  our  New  Testament  canon  were  regarded  as  Scripture  until  well 
on  in  the  second  century. 


536  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

chief  end  subserved.  But  there  was  another  function 
of  an  entirely  different  kind  which  constituted  from  the 
very  beginning  an  important  feature  of  the  gatherings  of 
Christian  disciples,  and  that  was  the  Lord's  Supper.  It 
is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  such  exercises  as  have 
been  described  did  not  occur  in  connection  with  that 
feast.  It  is  altogether  probable  that  when  Christians 
came  together  to  break  bread,  they  spoke  and  prayed  and 
prophesied  as  they  had  opportunity  or  as  the  Spirit  gave 
them  utterance.1  But  at  the  same  time  a  distinction  may 
fairly  be  drawn  between  the  services  which  have  been 
considered  and  the  meetings  for  partaking  of  the  Lord's 
Supper.  Such  services  might  be  held  on  many  occasions 
and  in  many  circumstances  when  there  was  no  opportunity 
for  eating  a  common  meal.  According  to  Pliny,  the  Chris- 
tians of  Bithynia  in  his  time  met  twice  on  a  stated  day: 
in  the  morning  to  sing  a  hymn  and  to  join  in  a  pledge, 
and  again  later  to  partake  of  a  common  meal,2  and  there 
are  indications  that  in  Corinth  a  similar  custom  was  ob- 
served. At  any  rate,  the  exercises  which  Paul  mentions 
in  the  fourteenth  chapter  of  First  Corinthians  cannot  well 
have  taken  place  in  the  meeting  which  he  describes  in 
the  eleventh  chapter  under  the  circumstances  that  existed 
in  that  meeting;  and  in  xiv.  24  unbelievers  are  repre- 
sented as  being  in  attendance,  while  they  can  hardly 
have  been  present  at  the  common  meal.3  Though  the 
custom  which  thus  seems  to  have  been  followed  in  Cor- 
inth, and  later  in  Bithynia,  may  not  have  been  universal, 
and  though  hard  and  fast  lines  between  the  two  kinds  of 
services  must  not  be  drawn,  it  is  safe  to  assume  that 
Christians  everywhere  met  together,  sometimes  with  the 
particular  purpose  of  partaking  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  at 
other  times  with  an  altogether  different  aim. 

It  was  seen  in  an  earlier  chapter  that  the  Lord's  Supper 
was  eaten  by  the  primitive  disciples  of  Jerusalem,  and 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  was  everywhere  celebrated 
in  the  churches  of  the  apostolic  age.  The  only  descrip- 

1  Cf.,  e.g.,  Acts  xx.  7.          2  See  Pliny's  epistle  referred  to  on  p.  531,  above. 
8  Cf.  also  Weizsiicker,  I.e.  S.  548  sq.  (Eng.  Trans.,  Vol.  II.  p.  249  sq.). 


THE   CHRISTIANITY   OF   THE  CHtTRCH   AT   LARGE      537 

tion  of  it  which  we  have  in  the  literature  of  the  period 
is  found  in  Paul's  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians.1  In 
that  epistle  he  is  led  by  certain  abuses  which  attached  to 
the  Supper  in  Corinth  to  reprove  his  readers  very  sharply, 
and  to  indicate  his  own  conception  of  the  service  and  the 
principles  which  ought  to  govern  its  observance.  It  seems 
that  the  Corinthians  were  in  the  habit  of  meeting  together 
for  the  purpose  of  partaking  of  a  common  meal,  just  as  the 
early  disciples  of  Jerusalem  had  been  in  the  habit  of  doing, 
and  that  at  that  meal  they  ate  bread  and  drank  wine  with 
an  especial  reference  to  Jesus,  thus  making  a  commemora- 
tive and  religious  feast  of  it.2  But  at  the  time  Paul  wrote 
his  epistle,  the  meal,  which  should  have  been  a  holy  meal 
from  beginning  to  end,  had  degenerated  into  a  scene  of 
discord  and  debauchery.  Each  was  concerned  to  satisfy 
his  own  appetite  without  any  regard  to  his  brethren,  and 
the  spirit  of  Christian  brotherhood,  and  even  the  common 
rules  of  decency,  were  violated  in  a  shocking  way.  It 
was  under  these  circumstances  that  Paul  reminded  them 
that  the  commemoration  of  Christ's  death  was  the  chief 
purpose  of  the  meal  and  not  the  eating  and  drinking  for 
their  own  sakes,  and  he  therefore  commanded  them  to 
satisfy  their  hunger  at  home,  so  that  when  they  came 
together  they  might  give  themselves  wholly  to  the  reli- 
gious part  of  the  service,  and  might  be  in  a  condition  to 
commemorate  Christ  in  the  right  spirit.3  The  principle 
thus  voiced  by  Paul  is  of  far-reaching  significance.  It 
means  logically  the  doing  away  of  the  simple  and  informal 
character  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  of  the  identification  of  that 
Supper  with  every  meal  eaten  by  Christians,  and  the  substi- 
tution of  a  specific  and  formal  religious  service  in  which 

1 1  Cor.  xi.  18  sq. 

2  The  common  meals  which  were  very  much  in  vogue  in  the  heathen  world 
of  the  period  may  have  had  some  influence  upon  the  common  meals  of  the 
Christians,  contributing  to  their  frequency  and  moulding  to  some  extent  the 
practices  connected  with  them  (cf .  especially  Hatch's  Hibbert  Lectures  on  the 
Influence  of  Greek  Ideas  and  Usages  on  the  Christian  Church,  p.  300),  but  it 
is  not  necessary  to  look  to  those  feasts  for  an  explanation  of  the  common  meals 
of  the  Christians.    The  impulse  thus  to  meet  together  was  given  by  the  con- 
ception of  the  church  as  a  family,  and  Paul  without  doubt  instituted  the 
Lord's  Supper  in  all  his  churches  at  the  very  beginning. 

3  1  Cor.  xi.  22,  34. 


538  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

eating  and  drinking  are  purely  symbolic  acts.  Thus  a 
ceremonial  rite  takes  the  place  of  a  real  meal,  and  a  line 
is  drawn  between  the  sacred  and  the  secular.  Instead  of 
the  permeation  of  every  ordinary  meal  with  a  sacred  char- 
acter, there  is  the  distinct  setting  apart  of  a  particular 
feast,  or  rather  the  institution  of  a  special  symbolic  feast, 
to  which  attaches  a  purely  religious  meaning,  so  that 
the  secular  character  of  all  other  meals  is  tacitly  recog- 
nized. Though  the  Lord's  Supper  was  everywhere  eaten 
by  Christian  disciples  before  Paul,  it  may  be  said  in  a 
certain  sense  that  it  was  established  by  him;  for  it  was 
he,  so  far  as  our  sources  enable  us  to  judge,  who  first 
made  it  a  special  meal,  and  separated  it  from  all  others.  It 
is  significant  that  his  action  was  due  to  the  abuses  which 
had  arisen  in  connection  with  the  Supper  as  eaten  in  the 
ordinary  way.  It  was  in  order  to  meet  a  practical  emer- 
gency that  he  laid  down  a  principle  which  was  destined 
ultimately  to  find  acceptance  everywhere,  not  only  because 
of  his  authority,  but  also  and  chiefly  because  the  same 
difficulties  which  made  their  appearance  at  an  early  day  in 
Corinth  must  at  some  time  or  other  make  their  appearance 
in  other  places  as  well,  even  though  in  less  offensive  form. 
While  the  original  sense  of  Christ's  immediate  presence 
was  real  and  vivid,  every  meal,  as  every  meeting,  of  the 
disciples  would  naturally  bear  a  sacred  character  and  be 
permeated  with  a  holy  meaning;  but  as  that  sense  grew 
gradually  fainter,  as  it  did  with  the  passage  of  time,  with 
the  multiplication  of  converts,  and  with  the  delay  of  the 
parousia,  the  difficulty  of  preserving  the  sacred  character 
of  all  meals  and  all  times  must  increase,  and  the  need  of 
setting  apart  certain  special  times  and  instituting  certain 
special  meals  of  a  more  sacred  character  must  be  increas- 
ingly felt.  It  is  one  of  the  strange  paradoxes  of  history 
that  the  great  apostle  of  liberty,  who  did  more  than  any 
one  else  to  oppose  and  destroy  the  reign  of  rites  and  cere- 
monies, should  yet  have  laid  down  principles  in  relation 
both  to  the  services  of  the  church  in  general,  and  to  the 
Lord's  Supper  in  particular,  which  were  essentially  formal 
and  stereotyping  in  their  effect. 


THE   CHRISTIANITY    OF    THE    CHURCH    AT    LARGE      539 

It  was  some  time  before  the  principle  enunciated  by 
Paul  in  connection  with  the  Lord's  Supper  was  carried 
out  to  its  logical  result.  It  was  not  his  intention  in  his 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  to  lay  down  a  general  law  which 
should  govern  all  churches.  He  was  concerned  simply  to 
provide  against  a  particular  difficulty  which  had  arisen  in 
Corinth,  and  to  prevent  the  recurrence  of  disgraceful  scenes 
which  may  not  have  been  common  elsewhere  at  that  time. 
And  so  it  is  not  strange  that  so  long  as  similar  diffi- 
culties did  not  arise  in  other  churches,  they  should  con- 
tinue to  unite  the  observance  of  the  Lord's  Supper  with  a 
regular  meal.  In  Syria  and  Asia  Minor  at  the  time  the 
Teaching  of  the  Apostles  and  the  epistles  of  Ignatius  were 
written,  and  in  Bithynia  in  the  time  of  Pliny,  the  Lord's 
Supper  and  the  common  meal,  or  agape,  seem  to  have 
been  combined.1  But  in  Rome,  when  Justin  Martyr 
wrote  his  Apology,  the  Lord's  Supper  was  attached  to  the 
regular  Sunday  service  of  worship,  and  the  agape  had  dis- 
appeared altogether  or  was  held  at  some  other  time.2  And 
though  the  common  meal  lingered  on  in  some  quarters  for 
many  generations,  it  was  gradually  prohibited  because  of 
the  excesses  to  which  it  frequently  gave  rise,  as  it  had 
done  at  an  early  day  in  Corinth. 

Paul's  conception  of  the  significance  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per appears  in  1  Cor.  xi.  24  sq.  and  x.  16  sq.  In  the 
former  passage  he  repeats  the  words  of  institution  as  he 
had  learned  them,  and  then  adds,  in  vs.  26,  a  comment  of 
his  own,  which  shows  that  he  conceived  of  the  Supper 
primarily  as  a  memorial  feast  in  which  the  death  of  the 
Lord,  the  great  central  fact  in  the  Pauline  theology,  was 
commemorated.  In  x.  16  sq.,  on  the  other  hand,  he  speaks 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  as  a  communion  feast,  in  partaking 
of  which  believers  become  united  not  simply  with  each 
other,  but  also  with  Christ,  whose  body  and  blood  are 
symbolized  in  the  bread  and  wine  of  which  all  partake. 
Thus  Paul  finds  in  the  Eucharist  a  symbolic  representa- 

1  Cf.  Didache,  X. ;  Ignatius:  Rom.  7;  Smyr.  7,  8,  and  the  Epistle  of  Pliny 
referred  to  above. 

2  See  Justin's  Apology,  I.  66. 


540    '  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

tion  of  that  real  and  vital  union  of  the  believer  with  the 
risen  Saviour  which  was  fundamental  in  his  conception  of 
the  Christian  life.  In  the  Lord's  Supper  are  symbolized 
at  once  the  believer's  death  with  Christ,  when  he  partakes 
of  the  cup  which  represents  Christ's  blood,  and  his  living 
union  with  him,  when  he  partakes  of  the  bread  which 
represents  his  abiding  presence  Avith  his  disciples.1  That 
Paul  does  not  think  of  the  communion  with  Christ  as  a 
realistic  or  material  participation  in  his  body  and  blood  is 
made  plain  enough  by  vs.  18,  where  he  speaks  of  the  Jews 
as  having  communion  with  the  altar  at  their  sacrificial 
feasts ;  but  he  does  think,  nevertheless,  of  the  real  union 
of  the  believer  with  Christ  and  of  the  consequent  union 
of  believers  with  each  other  as  symbolized  in  the  common 
meal,  in  which  one  bread  and  one  cup  are  partaken  of  by 
all.  The  unity  of  the  church,  the  body  of  Christ,  to  which 
Paul  refers  in  1  Cor.  xii.  27,  and  which  he  emphasizes  so 
strongly  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  is  thus  clearly 
shown  forth  in  the  Lord's  Supper  as  he  interprets  it. 

Our  sources  throw  little  light  upon  the  common  concep- 
tion of  the  Lord's  Supper  which  prevailed  in  the  church 
at  large  during  our  period.2  It  must  have  been  commonly 
regarded  as  a  commemoration  of  Christ's  death,  and  yet 
that  this  idea  of  it  was  not  everywhere  prominent  appears 
from  more  than  one  second-century  writing.3  It  was  not 
long  before  there  were  read  into  it  many  ideas  entirely 
foreign  to  the  thought  of  Christ  himself  and  equally  for- 
eign to  the  thought  of  Paul, —  ideas  developed  on  the  one 
hand  out  of  the  notion  of  sacrifice,  which  attached  to  the 
Supper  at  an  early  day,  and  on  the  other  hand  out  of  the 

1  Weizsacker's  reference  of  the  bread  to  the  living  Christ  and  of  the  wine 
to  his  death  (I.e.  S.  576;  Eug.  Trans.,  Vol.  II.  p.  282)  is  justified  by  Paul's 
words  in  1  Cor.  x.  16  sq.,  but  not  by  his  words  in  xi.  24  sq.     Verse  26  of 
the  latter  chapter  makes  it  clear  that  in  writing  that  passage  Paul  was 
thinking  of  Christ's  death  as  symbolized  by  both  elements.    The  fact  must 
be  recognized  that  he  was  looking  at  the  service   from  different  points  of 
view  in  the  two  chapters,  and  that  in  chap.  x.  he  brings  out  with  a  special 
purpose   a  special  and  secondary  idea  which  does  not  appear  in  the  other 
passage. 

2  The  supper  is  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament  only  in  the  Synoptic  Gos- 
pels, in  Acts  ii.  42,  46,  and  xx.  7,  in  1  Cor.  x.  and  xi.,  and  in  Jude  12. 

8  Cf.,  e.g.,  Didache,  IX.  and  X. ;  Ignatius:  Eph.  20;  Trail.  8;  Smyr.  6. 


THE   CHRISTIANITY   OF   THE   CHURCH   AT   LARGE      541 

conception  of  it  as  a  means  of  grace  or  of  the  bestowal  of 
divine  gifts  upon  the  participants.1 

In  the  Teaching  of  the  Apostles,2  it  is  expressly  com- 
manded that  the  Eucharist  shall  be  given  only  to  the  bap- 
tized. The  emphasis  upon  the  matter  suggests  that  the 
principle  was  not  always  observed,  and  that  even  unbap- 
tized  persons  were  sometimes  permitted  to  partake  of  the 
Supper.  But  the  command  doubtless  represents  the  com- 
mon sentiment  and  custom  of  the  church  at  large,  and  the 
disregard  of  it  must  have  been  exceptional.  As  was  seen 
in  an  earlier  chapter,  baptism  was  probably  practised  in 
the  Christian  church  from  the  beginning,3  and  was  every- 
where regarded  as  the  rite  by  which  a  believer  was  received 
into  the  Christian  circle.  It  seems  to  have  been  origi- 
nally a  baptism  of  repentance,  like  the  baptism  of  John, 
and  to  have  symbolized  the  purification  of  the  penitent 
from  the  sins  of  which  he  repented.  With  his  deeper 
and  more  spiritual  conception  of  the  Christian  life,  Paul 
attached  a  new  and  profound  meaning  to  the  rite,  making 
it  symbolize  the  death  of  the  believer  with  Christ  unto 
the  flesh  and  his  resurrection  with  him  unto  the  new  life 
in  the  Spirit.4  But  as  Paul's  conception  of  the  process  of 
redemption  did  not  find  general  acceptance,  so  his  inter- 
pretation of  baptism  seems  not  to  have  prevailed  widely.6 
Since  it  was  commonly  regarded  as  the  rite  which  symbol- 
ized or  marked  a  believer's  entrance  upon  the  Christian 
life,  it  was  possible  for  it  to  be  interpreted  in  many  ways, 
according  as  one  or  another  element  in  that  life  was  empha- 
sized. The  writings  of  our  period  throw  no  light  upon 
the  subject,  but  in  the  literature  of  the  second  century6 

1  These  later  ideas  cannot  be  traced  here,  but  the  reader  may  be  referred 
to  Harnack's  Dogmengeschichte,  3te  Auflage,  I.  S.  200  sq.  (Eng.  Trans.,  Vol. 
I.  p.  209  sq.).    Tlik  idea  that  the  Eucharist  (a  name  for  the  Supper  which 
appears  first  in  the  Didache,  IX.  and  in  many  other  second-century  writings) 
is  a  sacrifice  is  found  early  in  the  second  century,  the  name  6vala  being  first 
applied  to  it  in  the  Didache,  XIV. 

2  Chap.  X.  3  gee  above,  p.  59  sq. 

4  See  Rom.  vi.  3  sq.;  Gal.  iii.  27 ;  Col.  ii.  12 ;  and  cf.  1  Cor.  xii.  13. 

5  But  compare  1  Pet.  iii.  21. 

6  See  Harnack:  Doymengeschichte,  3te  Auflage,  I.  S.  198  sq.  (Eng.  Trans., 
Vol.  I.  p.  206  sq.).    Upon  the  original  and  later  baptismal  formula,  see  above, 
p.  60  sq. 


542  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

we  find  the  ceremony  pictured  under  the  most  diverse 
aspects. 

Paul  apparently  did  not  perform  the  rite  himself  very 
often;  for  he  regarded  it  as  his  business  not  to  baptize, 
but  to  preach  the  Gospel.1  At  the  same  time,  his  words 
in  1  Cor.  xii.  13  make  it  clear  that  all  his  converts  were 
baptized,  as  we  should  expect  them  to  be  in  view  of  the 
profound  symbolical  meaning  which  he  attached  to  the 
rite.2  It  is  evident  from  1  Cor.  i.  14  sq.  that  he  did  not 
regard  its  administration  as  the  peculiar  function  or  pre- 
rogative of  an  apostle  or  of  any  ecclesiastical  official,  and 
the  separation  of  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  from  the 
act  of  baptism,  and  the  ascription  to  him  and  to  other 
apostles  of  the  power  to  impart  the  Spirit  by  the  laying 
on  of  hands,  which  we  find  in  the  Book  of  Acts,  is  cer- 
tainly not  in  accord  with  his  conception.3 

The  ordinary  mode  of  baptism  in  the  apostolic  age  was 
immersion,  as  is  proved  not  only  by  Paul's  figure  in  Rom. 
vi.  3  and  1  Cor.  x.  2,  but  also  by  the  Teaching  of  the 
Apostles.*  The  latter  prescribes  immersion  in  ordinary 
cases,  but  allows  pouring  under  exceptional  circumstances, 
when  water  is  not  at  hand  in  sufficient  quantity  to  permit 
baptism  by  the  former  mode.  It  may  safely  be  inferred 
from  this  that  while  from  the  beginning  baptism  was  com- 
monly by  immersion,  the  essential  feature  of  the  rite  was 
the  use  of  water  and  not  the  mode  of  its  use,  and  that 
such  an  exception  as  is  made  in  the  Teaching  of  the  Apos- 
tles would  have  been  generally  recognized  as  valid.  To 
assert  that  in  the  time  of  the  apostles  particular  stress 
was  laid  upon  the  external  form  in  connection  with  such 
a  rite  is  to  run  counter  to  all  that  we  know  of  the  temper 
of  the  age.  The  insistence  upon  form  began  early,  to  be 
sure,  but  it  did  not  mark  the  earliest  stag£  in  Christian 
history.5 

1 1  Cor.  i.  14  sq. 

2  Cf.  also  Eph.  iv.  5.  On  the  practice  of  baptizing  for  the  dead,  referred  to 
in  1  Cor.  xv.  29,  see  above,  p.  272. 

a  See  above,  p.  97  sq.  *  Chap.  VII. 

6  Upon  the  mode  of  baptism  in  earlier  and  later  days,  see  especially  Schaff  's 
Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  p.  29  sq. 


THE  CHRISTIANITY   OF   THE   CHURCH   AT  LARGE      543 

Whether  infants  were  baptized  in  the  apostolic  age,  we 
have  no  means  of  determining.  Where  the  original  idea 
of  baptism  as  a  baptism  of  repentance,  or  where  Paul's 
profound  conception  of  it  as  a  symbol  of  the  death  and 
resurrection  of  the  believer  with  Christ  prevailed,  the 
practice  would  not  be  likely  to  arise.  But  where  the  rite 
was  regarded  as  a  mere  sign  of  one's  reception  into  the 
Christian  circle,  it  would  be  possible  for  the  custom  to 
grow  up  under  the  influence  of  the  ancient  idea  of  the 
family  as  a  unit  in  religion  as  well  as  in  all  other  mat- 
ters. Before  the  end  of  the  second  century,  at  any  rate, 
the  custom  was  common,  but  it  did  not  become  universal 
until  a  much  later  time.1 

There  can  be  little  doubt  that  throughout  the  period 
with  which  we  are  dealing  the  disciples  came  together 
in  larger  or  smaller  companies,  whether  for  the  break- 
ing of  bread  or  for  mutual  edification,  as  often  as  they 
could,  and  that  they  did  not  confine  their  religious  meet- 
ings to  stated  days  and  times.  Where  the  idea  of  the 
church  as  a  family  and  the  sense  of  brotherhood  and  of 
separation  from  all  the  rest  of  the  world  prevailed,  as 
they  did  in  the  early  days  in  Jerusalem,2  and  as  they  seem 
to  have  done  in  all  parts  of  Christendom  for  a  long  time, 
the  closest  possible  association  would  be  natural,  and  all 
such  association  would  inevitably  bear  more  or  less  of  a 
religious  character.  But  in  Jerusalem  and  in  other  Jew- 
ish communities  the  Sabbath  or  seventh  day  of  the  week, 
when  all  orthodox  Jews  refrained  from  labor,  would  afford 
unusual  opportunities  for  religious  meetings,  and  it  is 
very  likely  that  on  that  day  special  services  were  held  by 
the  disciples  almost  from  the  beginning.  It  was  natural, 
also,  that  the  first  day  of  the  week,  on  which  Jesus  arose 
from  the  dead,  should  be  an  occasion  for  peculiar  rejoicing, 
and  that  an  effort  should  be  made  to  mark  the  day  by 
gathering  together  in  as  large  numbers  as  possible;  and 

1  Tertullian  (De  Bapt.  18)  refers  to  the  practice  but  condemns  it,  while 
Origen  defends  it  and  declares  that  it  had  existed  since  the  days  of  the 
apostles  (Ep.  ad  Rom.  Lib.  V.  c.  9).  See  Schaff:  I.e.  p.  31,  and  Church 
History,  Vol.  II.  p.  258  sq. 

*  See  above,  p.  6G  sq. 


544  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

thus  the  special  observance  of  the  Lord's  day,  which  had 
become  established  in  the  second  century,  may  have  begun 
in  the  very  earliest  period.1  We  have  no  command  upon 
the  subject  in  the  writings  of  apostles  or  in  the  literature 
of  the  apostolic  age.  Paul  esteemed  all  days  alike  sacred, 
and  his  principles  were  not  such  as  to  lead  to  the  setting 
apart  of  any  particular  times  as  exclusively  or  especially 
holy;  but  on  the  other  hand  he  doubtless  observed  the 
Sabbath,  at  any  rate  when  he  was  in  Jerusalem,  and  he 
doubtless  united  with  his  converts  everywhere  in  com- 
memorating the  resurrection  of  Christ  on  the  Lord's  day, 
as  he  commemorated  his  death  in  the  Lord's  Sapper.2 

Our  study  of  the  Christian  life  of  the  apostolic  age  has 
revealed  the  moving  and  controlling  power  of  that  life  in 
the  disciples'  vivid  sense  of  the  presence  and  activity  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  its  spiritual  character  which  dis- 
tinguishes the  age  from  all  subsequent  periods  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  church.  But  before  the  apostles  themselves 

1  In  Pliny's  epistle  to  Trajan  it  is  said  that  the  Christians  of  Bithynia 
met  twice  on  a  stated  day  (die  stato),  which  can  hardly  have  been  any  other 
day  than  Sunday.     In  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  xv.,  we  read:  "Therefore 
also  we  keep  the  eighth  day  with  joyfulness,  the  day  also  on  which  Jesus 
rose  from  the  dead  and  was  manifested  and  ascended  into  heaven."    In  the 
Didache,  XIV.,  occurs  the  command:  "On  the  Lord's  day  of  the  Lord  (/card 
KvptaKrjv  Kvplov)  come  together  and  break  bread  " ;  and  in  Justin  Martyr's 
Apology,  I.  67,  is  given  an  elaborate  description  of  the  regular  Sunday 
service.    That  the  practice  of  holding  special  services  on  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  which  were  more  important  and  more  generally  attended  than  other 
services,  existed  already  in  the  apostolic  age  may  be  fairly  inferred  from 
1  Cor.  xvi.  2,  where  the  Corinthian  disciples  are  directed  to  lay  aside  on  that 
day  their  contributions  to  the  great  collection  for  the  saints  of  Jerusalem ;  and 
from  Rev.  i.  10,  where  the  author  seems  to  have  had  in  mind  the  gathering  of 
Christian  brethren  on  the  Lord's  day.    Cf.  also  John  xx.  26,  and  Acts  xx.  7. 
In  addition  to  the  Lord's  day  weekly  fast-days  were  also  widely  observed  in 
the  second  century.    The  Didache  (VIII.)  prescribes  Wednesday  and  Friday, 
and  they  were  for  a  long  time  regular  fast-days  in  the  church,  the  former 
commemorating  the  betrayal,  the  latter  the  crucifixion  of  Christ.    Of  such 
special  fast-days  we  have  no  trace  in  the  apostolic  age. 

2  We  learn  from  Rom.  xiv.  5  sq.  that  there  was  already  at  the  time  that 
epistle  was  written  a  decided  difference  of  sentiment  in  Rome  touching  the 
observance  of  special  days,  and  what  was  true  there  was  doubtless  true  in 
many  other  places.    Cf.  Col.  ii.  1<5  sq.,  and  see  above,  pp.  337  and  367  sq. 

We  learn  from  Heb.  x.  25  that  there  were  some  Christians  who  were  in  the 
habit  of  absenting  themselves  from  the  services  of  the  church,  and  the  author 
of  the  epistle  found  it  necessary  to  exhort  his  readers  not  to  follow  their 
example.  A  similar  exhortation  i<>  faithful  attendance  is  found  more  than 
once  in  the  epistles  of  Ignatius  (cf.  Mayn.  IV.;  Phil.  VI. ;  Smyr.  VI.). 


THE   CHRISTIANITY   OF   THE   CHURCH   AT   LARGE      545 

passed  off  the  scene  conditions  arose  which  were  calcu- 
lated to  do  away  ultimately  with  the  primitive  spirit  and 
the  primitive  practice,  and  which  must  inevitably  lead 
to  the  development  of  formalism  and  to  the  partial,  if 
not  complete,  subjection  of  the  spirit  to  the  letter,  of  the 
individual  to  the  organism.  The  beginnings  of  that 
process  in  the  sphere  of  worship  have  already  been  pointed 
out.  We  shall  have  occasion  in  the  next  chapter  to  trace 
its  beginnings  along  other  lines  as  well. 

2N 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  DEVELOPING   CHURCH 

THE  age  of  the  apostles  was  primarily  a  missionary  age, 
the  age  of  Christian  origins.  But  it  was  not  simply  that, 
for  long  before  they  passed  off  the  scene,  the  days  of  seed- 
sowing  were  succeeded  in  many  quarters  by  the  days  of 
tendance  and  husbanding,  and  the  churches  planted  by  the 
earliest  missionaries  had  entered  upon  that  period  of  devel- 
opment which  culminated  in  the  orthodox  catholic  church 
of  the  third  and  following  centuries.  It  is  impossible  to 
draw  any  hard  and  fast  lines  in  this  connection.  The 
attempt  to  separate  distinctly  the  earlier  from  the  later 
period  must  necessarily  end  in  failure.  It  has  been  fre- 
quently said  that  the  apostolic  age  really  came  to  an  end 
with  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  in  70  A.D.,  but  there  is 
no  reason  to  suppose  that  that  event  had  any  such  vital 
and  far-reaching  significance  as  to  justify  its  use  as  the 
point  of  division  between  the  apostolic  and  post-apostolic 
ages.  The  destruction  of  Jerusalem  of  course  affected 
Jewish  Christians.  But  the  church  at  large  was  not  Jew- 
ish, and  Jerusalem  had  long  ceased  to  be  the  centre  of 
Christendom.  The  fall  of  the  city  was  commonly  inter- 
preted by  the  disciples  as  God's  judgment  upon  the  Jews 
for  their  rejection  of  Christ ;  but  it  did  not  bring  about  any 
break  between  Judaism  and  the  Christianity  of  the  world 
at  large,  for  that  break  had  occurred  long  before,  and  the 
judgment  of  Judaism  current  in  the  Gentile  church  was 
not  in  any  way  affected  by  it.  Not  enough  attention  has 
been  paid  to  the  significant  silence  of  the  literature  of  the 
late  first  and  early  second  centuries  touching  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem.  It  was  formerly  thought  that  many 
documents  must  have  been  written  before  70,  because  they 

546 


THE   DEVELOPING   CHURCH  547 

do  not  refer  to  it.  It  is  now  known  that  they  were 
written  after  70,  though  they  do  not  refer  to  it,  and  the 
fact  certainly  suggests  that  the  event  had  far  less  impor- 
tance in  the  eyes  of  most  Christians  than  has  been  com- 
monly supposed.  To  make  the  event  an  epoch  in  the 
history  of  the  church,  is  to  give  to  later  Jewish  Chris- 
tianity a  far  more  important  place  in  the  development  of 
the  church  than  it  deserves,  and  is  to  obscure  the  fact  that 
Christianity  had  become  independent  long  before,  and  that 
its  independence  was  due  to  causes  of  a  far  more  vital 
character  than  the  destruction  of  a  city.  The  arrest  of 
Paul  in  Jerusalem  at  the  instance  of  the  Jews,  when  he 
was  endeavoring  to  cement  the  bond  between  the  Jewish 
and  Gentile  wings  of  the  church,  may  fairly  be  regarded 
as  of  greater  historic  significance  for  the  development  of 
Christianity  than  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem;  but  it 
would  involve  an  equal  exaggeration  of  the  significance 
of  Judaism,  to  make  even  that  the  dividing  line  between 
the  apostolic  and  post-apostolic  ages. 

It  has  been  claimed  that  the  apostolic  age  really  closed 
with  the  death  of  Paul.  But  while  its  history  is  very 
largely  a  history  of  his  life  and  work,  it  is  not  wholly 
that.  There  were  apostles  before  he  came  upon  the  scene, 
and  there  were  still  apostles  after  he  had  passed  away.  It 
is  true  that  we  know  much  less  about  Christianity  in  the 
last  forty  years  of  the  first  century  than  during  the  life- 
time of  Paul,  and  that  the  current  was  setting  very  rapidly 
during  those  years  in  the  direction  of  the  distinctly  sub- 
apostolic  Christianity  of  the  second  century.  But  neither 
of  these  considerations  justifies  us  in  excluding  the  years 
in  question  from  the  apostolic  age.  Paul's  death  was 
undoubtedly  a  fact  of  momentous  importance.  But  the 
tendencies  which  we  find  dominant  in  the  latter  part  of 
the  first  century  were  already  at  work  long  before  his 
death.  Even  in  his  own  churches  the  conditions  that 
existed  at  the  close  of  the  century  had  begun  to  exist 
during  his  lifetime,  and  in  the  churches  where  his  personal 
influence  was  not  felt  his  death  meant  little. 

If  the  term  "  apostle  "  were  to  be  taken  in  the  broader 


548  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

sense  in  which  it  was  widely  employed  in  the  primitive 
church,  we  should  have  to  bring  the  apostolic  age  down 
well  into  the  second  century,  when  there  were  still  travel- 
ling missionaries  who  bore  the  name  of  apostles ;  but  the 
term  early  acquired  a  narrower  significance,  and  has  been 
employed  ever  since  to  denote  the  Twelve  and  Paul  exclu- 
sively. The  phrase  "apostolic  age  "  accordingly  means  in 
ordinary  usage  the  period  in  which  the  Twelve  Apostles 
and  Paul,  all  or  any  of  them,  were  still  upon  the  scene. 
And  as  there  is  no  particular  event  which  can  be  regarded 
as  a  vital  epoch  dividing  the  age  of  origins  from  the  age 
of  development,  we  shall  do  well  to  employ  the  phrase  in 
its  traditional  sense,  and  to  bring  our  study  to  a  close  at 
the  time,  if  that  time  can  be  determined,  when  John,  the 
last  of  the  Twelve,  passed  away.  Not  that  his  death  had 
any  great  historic  significance.  It  meant  even  less  to  the 
church  in  general  than  the  death  of  Paul,  but  so  long  as 
he  was  alive,  it  cannot  fairly  be  said  that  the  days  of  the 
apostles  were  gone. 

The  most  marked  characteristic  of  the  closing  decades 
of  the  apostolic  age  is  the  rapid  progress  made  in  the 
direction  of  the  institutionalism  of  the  second  and  follow- 
ing centuries.  The  chapter  dealing  with  that  period,  there- 
fore, may  fairly  be  denominated  The  Developing  Church, 
and  the  chief  subject  of  interest  in  it  must  be  the  beginning 
of  the  historic  process  of  consolidation  and  conservation. 
But  the  entire  history  of  the  period  concerns  us  so  far  as  it 
can  be  known,  and  we  may  not  confine  ourselves  to  the 
single  subject.  Indeed,  that  subject  itself  can  be  under- 
stood only  in  the  light  of  the  general  history  of  which  it 
forms  a  part. 

The  history  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem  after  the  rise  and 
spread  of  Gentile  Christianity  lies  largely  aside  from  the 
general  history  of  the  church ;  but  it  cannot  be  neglected 
in  a  work  like  this,  and  it  may  fitly  be  considered  in  the 
present  chapter,  because  the  same  process  which  went  on 
outside  of  Palestine  began  in  the  church  of  Jerusalem  at 
an  early  day.  It  entered,  indeed,  upon  its  period  of  con- 
solidation and  conservation  even  earlier  than  other  com' 


THE   DEVELOPING  CHURCH  549 

munities.  And  so  before  turning  to  the  developing  church 
in  the  world  at  large,  we  may  consider  the  independent 
development  of  the  Mother  Church  of  Christendom,  and 
\ve  can  study  it  best  in  connection  with  the  life  and 
character  of  James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  who  was  for 
many  years  the  dominant  personality  in  it,  and  who  was 
the  great  representative  of  Jewish  Christianity,  as  Paul 
was  of  the  Christianity  of  the  world  at  large. 

1.  JAMES  AND  THE  CHURCH  OF  JERUSALEM 

From  Mark  vi.  3  and  Matt.  xiii.  55  we  learn  that  Jesus 
had  four  brothers :  James,  Joseph,  Simon,  and  Judas.1  The 
first  named  of  these  brothers,  and  the  oldest  of  them,  if  we 
may  judge  from  his  position  in  the  list,  was  one  of  the  most 
important  figures  in  the  church  of  the  apostolic  age,  and 
exerted  an  influence  within  the  Jewish  wing  of  the  church 
second  to  that  of  no  other  man.  And  yet  he  was  not  one 
of  the  Twelve,  and  apparently  not  even  a  disciple  until 
after  Christ's  resurrection.  At  least  John,  in  speaking  of 
the  brethren  of  Jesus,  records  that  they  did  not  believe  on 
him,2  which  can  mean  nothing  else  than  that  they  did  not 
believe  him  to  be  the  Messiah ;  and  though  the  statement 
is  made  in  connection  with  a  particular  event,  whose  chrono- 
logical place  in  the  life  of  Christ  is  not  certain,  it  may  fairly 
be  concluded  from  it  that  they  continued  in  the  same  state 
of  unbelief  throughout  the  period  of  his  ministry.3  It  is 
hardly  to  be  wondered  at  that  such  should  have  been  the 
case.  That  Jesus  made  a  great  impression  upon  his  younger 
brothers  during  their  boyhood  life  in  Galilee  cannot  be 
doubted.  They  must  have  grown  up  with  an  unbounded 
affection  and  admiration  for  him.  And  yet  the  very  intimacy 

1  These  "  brethren  of  Jesus  "  were  probably  his  own  brothers,  younger  sons 
of  Joseph  and  Mary.    Upon  the  various  theories  touching  their  relationship  to 
Jesus,  see  note  in  my  edition  of  Eusebius,  Bk.  I.  chap.  12;  and  especially  the 
elaborate  discussion  by  Mayor  in  his  Epistle  of  St.  James,  p.  vi.  sq. 

2  John  vii.  5.    Mark  iii.  31,  when  compared  with  iii.  21,  suggests  that  Jesus' 
brethren,  like  others  of  his  friends,  feared  that  he  was  demented,  as  was  not 
unnatural  if  they  did  not  believe  in  his  divine  call  and  mission. 

8  The  fact  that  Jesus,  on  the  cross,  committed  his  mother  to  the  apostle 
John,  when  her  own  children  were  still  living,  goes  to  show  that  they  were 
not  disciples  at  the  time  of  his  death. 


550  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

of  their  association  with  him,  and  the  simplicity  and  natu- 
ralness of  his  life  in  the  home  circle,  would  make  it  difficult 
for  them  to  see  in  him  the  Messiah ;  and  much  as  they 
loved  him,  and  confident  as  they  must  have  been  of  his 
honesty  and  purity  of  purpose,  they  could  hardly  think  of 
one  of  their  own  number,  who  was  of  humble  extraction 
like  themselves,  and  had  passed  with  them  through  all  the 
simple  and  homely  experiences  of  boyhood  and  youth,  as 
the  great  Messiah  of  God,  as  the  chosen  one  who  was  to 
deliver  Israel  from  the  yoke  of  the  oppressor  and  establish 
the  kingdom  foretold  by  the  prophets.  All  those  difficul- 
ties which  hindered  his  townspeople  and  fellow-countrymen 
from  recognizing  him  as  the  Messiah  must  act  upon  them, 
with  double  force.  The  words  "  A  prophet  is  not  without 
honour,  save  in  his  own  country  and  among  his  own  kin  and 
in  his  own  house," 1  were  spoken  by  Jesus  out  of  his  own 
experience,  and  no  other  experience  was  possible  under  the 
circumstances. 

But  within  a  few  weeks  after  his  resurrection,  the  breth- 
ren of  Jesus  were  gathered  with  his  followers  in  Jerusalem, 
and  evidently  belonged  to  the  company  of  his  disciples.2 
In  the  interval,  therefore,  they  must  have  become  con- 
vinced of  their  brother's  Messiahship.  When  and  under 
what  circumstances  their  conversion  took  place,  we  are  not 
told ;  but  we  have  a  hint  of  the  occasion  that  led  to  it,  at 
least  in  the  case  of  James.  In  his  First  Epistle  to  the  Corin- 
thians Paul  mentions  an  appearance  of  the  risen  Jesus  to 
James,  and  separates  it  from  his  appearances  to  Peter,  to  the 
Twelve,  and  to  the  five  hundred  brethren,  in  such  a  way  as  to 
imply  that  it  took  place  later  than  the  others.3  This  fact  at 
once  suggests  the  conclusion  that  James  was  not  a  disciple 
at  the  time  of  those  earlier  manifestations,  but  became  such 
as  a  result  of  his  own  vision  of  the  risen  Lord.4  The  cir- 

1  Mark  vi.  4.  2  Acts  i.  14.  8  1  Cor.  xv.  7. 

4  Compare  the  account  of  Christ's  appearance  to  James,  in  the  apocryphal 
Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  quoted  by  Jerome  in  his  De  vir.  ill.  c.  2. 
Jerome's  words  are  as  follows:  "The  Gospel  also  which  is  called  the  Gospel 
according  to  the  Hebrews,  and  which  I  have  recently  translated  into  Greek 
and  Latin  and  which  Origj'ii  also  often  makes  use  of,  after  ihc  account  of  the 
resurrection  of  the  Saviour,  says,  '  But  the  Lord,  after  he  had  given  his  grave- 
plothes  to  the  servant  of  the  priest,  appeared  to  James,  for  James  had  sworn 


THE  DEVELOPING   CHURCH  551 

cumstances  under  which  the  other  brethren  of  Christ  be- 
came believers,  we  have  no  means  of  determining.  They, 
too,  may  have  enjoyed,  as  James  did,  a  special  manifesta- 
tion of  the  risen  Lord,  or  James  may  have  succeeded  in 
convincing  them  of  the  reality  of  the  resurrection,  and  they 
may  have  become  believers  under  his  influence.  They  were 
at  any  rate  of  less  importance  than  James,  and  we  know 
nothing  about  their  Christian  career,  except  that  they  were 
gathered  with  the  disciples  in  Jerusalem  in  the  days  pre- 
ceding Pentecost,1  and  some  twenty  or  more  years  later 
were  travelling  about  apparently  doing  missionary  work.2 

It  is  necessary  to  assume,  in  the  light  of  subsequent 
events,  that  James'  conversion  was  complete  and  thorough- 
going, and  led  him  to  throw  himself  heart  and  soul  into 
the  service  of  the  Master.  He  cannot  have  been  a  half- 
hearted disciple.  He  must  have  been  one  of  the  most 
zealous,  active,  and  devoted  of  them  all  to  secure  the 
position  which  he  ultimately  held.  His  relationship  to 
Jesus,  and  his  intimate  acquaintance  with  him  from  boy- 
hood, of  course  made  him  a  marked  man  among  the  dis- 
ciples, and  doubtless  contributed  greatly  to  his  reputation 
and  authority;  but  such  natural  advantages  do  not  alone 
account  for  the  tremendous  influence  which  he  wielded  for 
so  many  years,  —  an  influence  which  he  did  not  share  with 
his  brothers.  Only  because  he  possessed  at  the  same  time 
the  qualities  of  a  leader,  and  an  uncommon  zeal  and  devo- 
tion, could  he  acquire  the  universal  credit  he  enjoyed. 

But  it  was  not  simply  his  character  as  a  Christian  that 
contributed  to  James'  influence  and  authority.  His  char- 
acter as  a  Jew  counted  for  a  great  deal  with  the  strict 
Jews  of  the  Mother  Church.  Though  he  was  converted  by 
a  vision  of  the  risen  Jesus,  as  Paul  was,  his  conversion  pro- 

that  he  would  not  eat  bread  from  that  hour  in  which  he  drank  the  cup  of  the 
Lord  until  he  should  see  him  rising  from  the  dead.'  And  again  a  little  later 
it  says,  'Bring  a  table  and  bread,  said  the  Lord.'  And  immediately  it  is 
added,  'He  took  bread  and  blessed  and  brake  and  gave  to  James  the  Just, 
and  said  to  him,  My  brother,  eat  thy  bread,  for  the  Son  of  man  is  risen  from 
among  those  that  sleep.'  " 

1  Acts  i.  14. 

2  1  Cor.  ix.  5.    In  this  passage  Paul  mentions  the  "  brethren  of  the  Lord," 
without  indicating  how  many  of  them  he  has  in  mind. 


552  THE   APOSTOLIC    AGE 

duced  an  entirely  different  effect  upon  him.  He  had  appar« 
ently  passed  through  no  such  experience  of  the  futility  of 
endeavoring  to  keep  the  law,  and  it  was  not  a  sense  of  the 
need  of  justification,  or  of  deliverance  from  sin  and  death, 
that  led  him  to  Christ.  He  was  evidently  before  his  con- 
version an  uncommonly  devout  and  faithful  Jew,  and  in  ac- 
cepting Christ  he  never  thought  of  ceasing  to  be  such,  or  of 
regarding  the  observance  of  the  law  as  of  less  importance 
than  before.  Rather,  like  his  other  Christian  brethren,  he 
must  have  regarded  it  as  of  even  greater  importance ;  and 
nothing  in  the  teaching  or  conduct  of  Jesus  suggested  any- 
thing else  to  him.  All  that  we  know  of  him  points  to  an 
excessive  reverence  for  the  Jewish  law  in  all  its  parts,  and 
a  most  scrupulous  observance  of  it  throughout  his  life,1 
and  in  a  church  constituted  as  the  church  of  Jerusalem 
was  such  a  tendency  naturally  promoted  greatly  his  repu- 
tation for  piety.  He  was  thoroughly  in  sympathy  with 
the  religious  ideal  which  prevailed  from  the  beginning 
in  the  Mother  Church,  and  he  was  himself  apparently 
one  of  the  most  earnest  and  faithful  of  the  disciples  in 
its  realization.  In  this  respect  he  was  much  more  nearly 
in  accord  with  the  spirit  and  tendency  of  the  Christianity 
of  Jerusalem  than  Peter  was,  at  any  rate,  after  the  latter's 
experience  with  Cornelius;  and  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at 
that  even  while  Peter  and  perhaps  other  apostles  were  still 
on  the  ground,  his  influence  should  have  been  very  great, 
and  that  after  they  left  the  city  to  carry  on  missionary 
work  elsewhere,  he  should  have  been  universally  recog- 
nized as  the  leading  figure  in  the  church. 

Already,  at  the  time  of  Paul's  first  visit  to  Jerusalem, 
three  years  after  his  conversion,  James  occupied,  appar- 
ently, a  prominent  position  among  the  disciples,2  and 
eleven  years  later  he  was  one  of  the  three  "  pillars  "  of  the 
church,  from  whom  Paul  received  the  right  hand  of  fellow- 
ship and  with  whom  he  entered  into  the  compact  by  which 

1  Cf.  Acts  xv.  20  sq.,  xxi.  20  sq.,  Gal.  ii.  12  sq. ;   also  Hegesippus,  in  Euse- 
bius:  H.E.  II.  22;  and  Clement  of  Alexandria,  in  Eusebius:  H.  E.  II.  1. 

2  Gal.  i.  10.    Cf.  also  Acts  xii.  17,  where  it  is  recorded  that  Peter,  after 
his  release  from  prison,  directed  the  disciples  in  Mary's  house  to  tell  "  James 
and  the  brethren  "  what  had  happened  to  him. 


THE   DEVELOPING  CHURCH  558 

Christendom  was  divided  into  a  Jewish  and  a  Gentile  wing.1 
It  is  significant  that  James  is  here  associated  with  Peter 
and  John  in  the  same  way  that  James  the  son  of  Zebedee 
was  during  the  lifetime  of  Jesus,  and  it  may  well  be,  as 
suggested  in  a  previous  chapter,2  that  after  the  martyrdom 
of  his  apostolic  namesake  he  was  chosen  as  his  successor, 
as  Matthias  at  an  earlier  time  had  been  chosen  to  succeed 
Judas  Iscariot.  But  however  that  may  be,  he  was  at  any 
rate  the  chief  personage  in  the  church  of  Jerusalem  shortly 
afterwards,  when  messengers  sent  by  him  to  Antioch  took 
Peter  to  task  for  his  conduct  and  persuaded  him  to  with- 
draw from  association  with  his  Gentile  brethren.3  He  was 
also  the  leading  figure  among  the  disciples  some  seven  or 
eight  years  later  when  Paul  visited  the  city  for  the  last 
time.4 

The  exact  position  which  James  held  in  the  church  of 
Jerusalem,  it  is  impossible  to  define  with  absolute  assur- 
ance. Tradition,  beginning  with  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
who  lived  and  wrote  in  the  latter  part  of  the  second  cen- 
tury, makes  him  the  first  bishop  of  the  Mother  Church,  and 
reports  that  he  was  appointed  to  the  office  by  the  apostles.5 
But  similar  traditions  were  abroad  at  that  time  concerning 
all  the  great  churches  of  the  world,  and  little  reliance  can 

1  Gal.  ii.  9.    It  is  to  be  noticed  that  Paul  in  this  passage  mentions  James 
before  Peter  and  John,  as  if  he  were  of  more  importance  in  the  church  of 
Jerusalem  than  even  those  two  apostles. 

2  See  p.  198,  above.  «  Gal.  ii.  11  sq.  *  Acts  xxi.  18. 

5  Cf .  Eusebius :  H.  E.  II.  1,  where  Clement  is  quoted  as  follows :  "  For  they 
say  that  Peter  and  James  and  John  after  the  ascension  of  our  Saviour,  strove 
not  after  honour,  because  preferred  by  our  Lord,  but  chose  James  the  Just 
bishop  of  Jerusalem."  There  is  some  doubt  as  to  whether  2\e<rdai  ("  chose  ") 
or  ytveo-Sai  ("  became  ")  is  the  true  reading,  but  the  former  is  probably  to  be 
preferred.  See  my  translation  of  Eusebius,  note  in  loc.  Clement  got  much 
of  his  information  about  James  from  Hegesippus,  but  whether  he  took  this 
particular  statement  from  him  we  do  not  know.  Hegesippus  has  a  great  deal 
to  say  about  James,  and  clearly  recognizes  him  as  the  chief  man  in  the  church 
of  Jerusalem,  but  he  does  not  call  him  bishop  in  the  extant  fragments  of  his 
writings.  (Whether  the  word  detrepov,  in  Eusebius,  IV.  22,  4,  is  to  be  taken 
with  tirlffKoirov,  implying  that  there  had  been  a  bishop  of  the  church  before 
Syineon,  or  with  avtyiov,  implying  only  that  Symeon  as  well  as  James  was 
a  relative  of  Jesus,  is  uncertain.  The  latter  alternative  is  maintained  by 
Loening  in  his  Gemeindeverfassunc/  des  Urdiristenthums,  S.  108,  and  is  the 
more  probable  of  the  two.)  James  is  also  called  bishop  of  Jerusalem  by  Euse- 
bius, in  II.  23,  III.  7,  and  IV.  5 ;  and  in  II.  23  it  is  said  that  he  was  appointed 
by  the  apostles. 


554  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

be  placed  upon  any  of  them.  At  the  same  time,  the  fact 
must  be  recognized  that  there  is  more  apparent  ground  for 
the  tradition  in  the  case  of  James  and  the  church  of  Jeru- 
salem than  in  any  other  case ;  for  he  certainly  exerted  a 
commanding  influence  in  that  church  for  many  years.  If 
the  term  "  bishop  "  may  be  legitimately  applied  to  any  in- 
dividual in  the  apostolic  age,  it  would  seem  as  if  that  indi- 
vidual must  be  James  the  brother  of  the  Lord.  But,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  our  sources  do  not  warrant  us  in  using  the 
term  even  of  him.  Though  he  is  mentioned  so  frequently 
in  the  Book  of  Acts  and  in  the  epistles  of  Paul,  he  is  not 
once  called  bishop,  nor  are  episcopal  functions  ascribed  to 
him.  To  call  him  bishop  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem,  there- 
fore, would  be  even  less  justifiable  than  to  call  the  Seven 
deacons.  The  episcopate,  like  the  diaconate,  had  its  origin 
not  in  Jerusalem,  but  in  the  churches  of  the  Gentile  world, 
and  the  causes  that  gave  rise  to  it  were  entirely  different 
from  those  that  led  to  the  elevation  of  James.1  It  is,  con- 
sequently, unhistorical  and  misleading  to  use  the  term  in 
speaking  of  him,  as  is  often  done. 

But  not  simply  is  it  to  be  denied  that  James  can  properly 
be  called  bishop  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem ;  we  may  go 
further  and  say  that  there  is  no  sign  that  he  held  any  offi- 
cial position  in  that  church.  That  he  possessed  a  control- 
ling influence  in  it  is  evident;  but  the  possession  of  such  an 
influence  is  far  from  involving  official  position  and  authority, 
and  of  the  latter  there  is  nowhere  a  trace  in  our  sources. 
The  decree  quoted  in  Acts  xv.  23  sq.,  though  proposed  by 
James,  was  issued  by  "the  apostles  and  elder  brethren,"  and 
does  not  contain  his  name,  as  it  would  seem  that  it  must  have 
done  if  he  held  a  specific  office  distinguishable  from  that  of 
the  apostles,  and  superior  to  that  of  the  elders.  The  truth 
is,  that  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  during  the  life- 
time of  James  there  was  any  official  ruler,  or  even  any  regu- 
lar governing  body  in  the  church  of  Jerusalem.  The  apos- 
tles certainly  did  not  constitute  such  a  body,2  and  there  is 

1  See  p.  659,  below. 

2  See  p.  45,  above ;   and  see  also  Re'ville's  Les  Origines  de  Vfcpiscopat 
(p.  50  sq.),  which  came  into  my  hands  after  my  discussion  of  the  apostolate 
was  in  type. 


THE  DEVELOPING  CHURCH  555 

no  proof  that  the  elders  did.  Indeed,  the  use  of  the  term 
"elder  brethren"  in  the  decree  just  referred  to  makes 
directly  against  the  existence  of  an  official  eldership  at  the 
time  that  decree  was  prepared,  and  throws  light  back  upon 
those  passages  in  which  the  noun  "  elder  "  or  "  presbyter  " 
occurs.  Thus  in  the  immediately  preceding  context  the 
author  of  the  Acts  speaks  of  the  apostles  and  elders  as  the 
authors  of  the  decree  in  such  a  way  as  to  leave  the  impres- 
sion that  they  constituted  two  official  classes  in  the  church,1 
but  the  decree  itself  presents  them  under  an  entirely  differ- 
ent aspect. 

It  was  natural  that  the  elder  brethren  should  exert  a 
large  measure  of  influence  from  the  very  beginning,  and 
that  the  conduct  of  affairs,  and  the  settlement  of  difficult 
questions,  should  fall  more  and  more  into  their  hands  as 
time  passed,  and  as  the  number  of  disciples  multiplied. 
And  it  was  natural  that  out  of  this  personal  precedence, 
there  should  finally  develop  an  official  precedence  and 
authority,  and  that  the  Christian  churches  in  Palestine 
should  ultimately  take  on  an  organization  similar  to  that  of 
the  Jewish  communities  in  whose  midst  they  made  their 
home.2  But  that  development  could  hardly  take  place 
until  the  conditions  under  which  the  Christians  of  Jeru- 
salem originally  lived  had  entirely  changed.  So  long  as 
they  constituted  an  integral  part  of  the  Jewish  people 
and  worshipped  in  the  temple  and  the  synagogue  with 
their  unconverted  countrymen,  there  was  no  reason  for 
them  to  form  a  separate  community  of  their  own  with 
an  independent  organization.  Such  a  step  must  seem 
like  cutting  themselves  off  from  the  family  of  Israel,  to 
which  in  reality  they  felt  most  closely  bound.  Even  the 
persecution  that  followed  the  execution  of  Stephen  did 
not  sever  the  bond  that  united  them  to  their  Jewish 
brethren.  Many  of  them,  especially  the  Hellenists,  were 

1  Acts  xv.  22. 

2  The  influence  of  Judaism  may,  and  very  likely  does,  explain  the  official 
eldership  of  the  later  Jewish  Christian  churches.    But  it  is  possible,  on  the 
other  hand,  that  that  eldership  was  due  to  a  merely  natural  growth.    In  support 
of  the  former  alternative  see  Loening:  Gemeind^yerfassung  des  Urchristen- 
thums,  S.  69  sq.,  and  Reville :  Les  Oriyines  de  I' Episcopal,  p.  GO  sq.    On  the 
other  side  see  Sohm:  Kirchenrecht,  Bd.  I.  S.  103  sq. 


556  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE 

scattered  abroad  and  probably  made  their  homes  perma- 
nently elsewhere;  but  after  the  storm  had  passed,  the 
church  of  Jerusalem  seems  to  have  been  in  much  the 
same  position  it  had  occupied  from  the  beginning.  In- 
deed, it  is  probable  that  the  disciples  made  a  greater  effort 
than  ever  to  exhibit  their  loyalty  to  the  religion  of  their 
fathers,  in  order  to  vindicate  themselves  from  the  charge 
which  had  been  brought  against  them.  At  any  rate,  it  is 
certain  that  they  were  exceedingly  zealous  for  the  Jewish 
law  at  the  time  of  the  apostolic  council,  and  also  seven  or 
eight  years  later  when  Paul  visited  the  city  for  the  last 
time.1  And  so  they  seem  to  have  lived  on  good  terms 
with  their  neighbors,  and  without  suffering  any  molesta- 
tion from  them  until  almost  the  beginning  of  the  Jewish 
war.  Had  it  been  otherwise,  it  would  not  have  been  possi- 
ble for  their  leader,  whose  position  among  them  must  have 
been  well  known,  to  enjoy  the  reputation  he  did  among 
his  unbelieving  countrymen  and  to  be  called  by  them,  as 
well  as  by  his  Christian  brethren,  "  James  the  Just."  2  It 
was  doubtless  the  supreme  desire  of  the  Christians  of 
Jerusalem  after  the  death  of  Stephen,  as  it  had  been 
before,  to  lead  not  simply  individual  Jews  but  the  Jewish 
nation  to  Christ,  and  to  permeate  it  in  its  organized  form, 
—  with  its  temple,  its  synagogue,  its  priesthood,  and  its 
Sanhedrim,  —  with  the  Christian  faith.  But  this  aim,  while 
it  would  not  of  course  in  the  least  interfere  with  the 
practice  of  Christian  worship  and  with  the  exercise  of 
charity  and  of  discipline  within  the  Christian  brotherhood, 
would  naturally  hinder  the  development  of  an  indepen- 
dent organization.  Only  after  the  outbreak  of  the  Jewish 
war,  when  the  Christians  of  Jerusalem,  finding  themselves 
obliged  to  leave  the  city  and  to  make  their  home  among 
the  Gentiles,  broke  definitely  and  permanently  with  the 
Jewish  nation,  did  the  conditions  exist  that  might  be  ex- 
pected to  lead  to  a  separate  body  corporate.  In  the  light 
of  these  considerations,  coupled  with  Paul's  complete 

1  Acts  xxi.  20. 

2  Cf .  Hegesippus  in  Eusebius :  H.  E.  II.  23 ;  Clement  of  Alexandria  in  Euse- 
bius :  H.  E.  II.  1 ;  and  the  words  ascribed  to  Josephus  by  Origen  and  Eusebius 
and  quoted  by  tbe  latter  iii  II.  23,  20. 


THE  DEVELOPING  CHURCH  557 

silence  upon  the  subject  and  with  the  indications  in  the 
Book  of  Acts  which  have  been  already  referred  to,  it  may 
fairly  be  assumed  that  there  were  no  regular  officials  in 
charge  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem  during  the  period  cov- 
ered by  the  Book  of  Acts,  and  that  the  precedence  both 
of  James  and  of  the  elder  brethren  was  natural  only,  not 
official. 

The  influence  of  James  was  not  confined  to  the  church 
of  Jerusalem.  It  was  but  a  short  time  after  the  apostolic 
council  that  he  made  his  authority  felt  in  Antioch,  and 
succeeded  in  inducing  Peter  and  other  Jewish  disciples, 
who  had  thrown  aside  their  scruples  and  were  communing 
with  Gentile  Christians,  to  withdraw  from  association  with 
the  latter  and  return  to  that  strict  observance  of  the  Jew- 
ish law  which  was  practised  in  Jerusalem.1  This  is  the 
only  explicit  testimony  we  have  to  the  extension  of  his 
influence  beyond  the  bounds  of  Palestine  during  his  life- 
time ;  but  prominent  as  he  was  in  the  Mother  Church,  his 
pre-eminence  must  have  been  recognized  everywhere  by 
those  (and  there  were  many  of  them)  who  were  one  with 
that  church  in  their  aims  and  in  their  practices. 

And  yet  it  would  be  a  mistake  to  suppose,  as  has  been 
supposed  by  many,  that  James  lent  his  support  to  the  anti- 
Pauline  campaign  which  was  carried  on  by  Jewish  Chris- 
tians in  one  form  or  another  for  many  years.  They  may 
have  appealed  to  him  as  their  authority,  but  there  is  no 
proof  that  they  did,  and  at  any  rate  they  were  not  justi- 
fied in  doing  so.  James  was  not  a  Judaizer.  At  the  time 
of  the  council  he  distinctly  recognized  the  legitimacy  of 
Gentile  Christianity,  and  gave  his  approval  to  the  work 
of  Paul ;  and  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  he  later 
receded  from  the  position  taken  then.  Indeed,  Paul  could 
not  have  visited  Jerusalem  in  the  year  53  had  either  the 
church  of  Jerusalem  as  a  whole  or  James  himself,  the 
leading  figure  in  it,  been  in  sympathy  with  the  principles 
of  the  Judaizers.  That  the  latter  had  support  in  Jerusa- 
lem, there  can  be  no  doubt.  There  was  an  influential 
party  in  the  church  there  at  the  time  of  the  council  that 

i  Gal.  ii.  11  sq. 


558  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

was  unwilling  to  recognize  Gentile  Christianity,  and  did 
all  it  could  to  secure  its  condemnation.  But  the  Judaizers 
were  defeated  by  Paul  both  at  Jerusalem  and,  later,  in 
Galatia,  and  they  seem  finally  to  have  given  up  the  con- 
test as  futile.  But  though  thus  defeated  they  did  not 
cease  to  hate  Paul,  who  was  an  apostate  from  Judaism 
and  who  was  influencing  Jewish  Christians  everywhere  to 
become  what  he  was.  Hostility  to  him  still  continued 
bitter,  both  within  and  without  the  church  of  Jerusalem, 
and  that  hostility  led  to  attacks  upon  his  apostolic  calling 
and  character  in  Corinth  and  elsewhere.  How  James  felt 
about  the  effects  of  Paul's  work  upon  the  Jews  of  the  dis- 
persion we  are  not  told,  but  we  can  imagine  that  he  must 
have  shared  the  dissatisfaction  of  his  brethren  in  Jerusa- 
lem as  he  saw  so  many  of  the  children  of  the  Promise 
renouncing  the  religion  of  their  fathers ;  as  he  saw  Chris- 
tianity becoming,  instead  of  a  bridge  from  Gentilism  to 
Judaism,  as  the  Christians  of  Jerusalem  had  hoped  that 
it  would,  a  bridge  from  Judaism  to  Gentilism.  And  yet 
he  evidently  did  not  break  openly  with  Paul ;  and  we  can 
hardly  suppose,  in  the  light  of  Paul's  final  visit  to  Jerusa- 
lem, that  he  approved  of  the  attacks  made  upon  Paul's 
character  and  calling.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  may 
fairly  be  doubted  whether  there  was  any  very  strong  bond 
of  confidence  between  the  two  men,  and  whether  it  was 
not  for  his  own  sake  as  well  as  for  that  of  the  church 
at  large  that  James  joined  with  others  in  proposing  that 
Paul  should  do  something  while  in  Jerusalem  to  demon- 
strate his  loyalty  to  Judaism.1 

At  any  rate,  whatever  the  exact  feeling  of  James,  it  is 
clear  that  the  church  of  Jerusalem  as  a  whole  was  far 
from  friendly  to  Paul.  He  avoided  visiting  the  city  for 
a  long  time  after  the  apostolic  council,  and  when  he  finally 
went  thither,  he  went  armed  with  a  contribution  which 
he  hoped  would  be  accepted  as  a  proof  of  his  own  devotion 
to  the  Mother  Church  and  thus  dissipate  the  prejudice  and 
hostility  of  the  disciples  there,  and  at  the  same  time  serve 
to  bind  the  two  wings  of  the  church  together  as  they  had 

i  Acts  xxi.  23. 


THE  DEVELOPING   CHURCH  559 

not  hitherto  been  bound.  But  he  had  serious  misgivings 
as  to  the  way  in  which  his  offering  would  be  received,1 
and  though  the  brethren  are  said  to  have  welcomed  him 
and  his  companions  gladly,2  their  suspicions  were  not 
allayed,  and  instead  of  cordial  approval  and  hearty  recog- 
nition of  the  great  work  which  he  had  been  doing,  he  met 
with  adverse  criticism  and  but  thinly  veiled  hostility. 
The  great  collection  failed  utterly  to  produce  the  effect 
which  he  had  hoped  that  it  would,  —  it  is  not  even  men- 
tioned by  the  author  of  the  Acts,  —  and  when  he  was 
accused  of  profaning  the  temple  there  is  no  hint  that  his 
Christian  brethren  of  Jerusalem  came  to  his  assistance 
in  any  way  or  took  any  steps  to  secure  his  vindication. 
They  were  doubtless  dissatisfied  with  the  effect  of  his 
work  upon  the  Jews  of  the  dispersion  and  they  must 
have  been  aware,  in  spite  of  his  effort  to  show  that  he 
was  not  an  enemy  of  the  law,  that  he  did  not  commonly 
observe  it,  and  it  may  well  be  that  they  were  unwilling  to 
compromise  themselves  by  taking  his  part.  So  when  he 
was  arrested  they  left  him  to  his  fate,  refraining  apparently 
even  from  bearing  testimony  to  his  innocence.  The  long- 
standing hostility  to  Paul,  which  thus  found  expression  on 
the  occasion  of  his  last  visit  to  Jerusalem,  became  finally 
even  more  general  within  the  Jewish  wing  of  the  church, 
and  in  subsequent  generations  constituted  one  of  the  most 
distinctive  and  characteristic  features  of  Ebionism. 

Our  knowledge  of  the  fortunes  of  the  church  of  Jerusa- 
lem after  the  first  few  years  of  its  existence  is  very  meagre. 
The  persecution  instituted  by  Herod  Agrippa  I.3  seems  to 
have  been  only  of  brief  duration,  and  from  that  time  until 
almost  the  beginning  of  the  Jewish  war  the  disciples  appar- 
ently lived  at  peace  with  their  neighbors  and  with  the 
authorities.  But  in  the  year  62  the  high  priest  Ananus, 
a  son  of  Ananus  the  elder,4  seized  the  opportunity  offered 
by  the  death  of  the  procurator  Festus,  and  the  delay  in 
the  arrival  of  his  successor  Albinus,  to  compass  the  death 
of  James  and  of  some  others,  who  were  also  probably  Chris- 

i  Cf.  Rom.  xi.  31.  2  Acts  xxi.  17.  8  Acts  xii. 

4  Called  Annas  in  the  New  Testament,  but  Ananus  by  Josephus. 


560  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

tians.1  He  accused  them  before  the  Sanhedrim  of  violating 
the  Jewish  law,  and  though  the  Sanhedrim  had  no  right  to 
pass  sentence  of  death  upon  any  one,  except  with  the  con- 
sent of  the  procurator,  they  were  condemned  to  be  stoned, 
and  the  sentence  was  executed  at  any  rate  in  the  case  of 
James,  and  apparently  in  the  case  of  all  of  them.  The 
ground  of  the  hostility  exhibited  by  Ananus,  we  do  not 
know.  It  is  not  likely  that  he  was  moved  by  religious 
considerations ;  for  he  was  not  the  kind  of  a  man  to  care 
much  about  the  religious  principles  and  practices  of  James 
or  any  one  else,  and  the  accusation  that  they  were  violating 
the  Jewish  law  was  probably  a  mere  pretext.  All  that  we 
know  of  James  forbids  the  supposition  that  he  had  made 
himself  liable  to  such  a  charge,  and  had  his  real  crime  been 
of  that  character,  not  Ananus,  a  Sadducee,  but  the  Phari- 
sees would  have  been  his  accusers.2  It  is  possible  that  in 
the  unsettled  and  turbulent  condition  of  the  city,  when 
the  feeling  against  the  Romans  was  running  high  and  the . 
people  were  in  a  very  inflammable  state,  the  Messianic 
preaching  of  the  Christians  seemed  dangerous  to  the  Sad- 
ducees,  who  were  friendly  to  Rome  and  strenuously  opposed 
to  war,  and  that  their  representative  Ananus  took  the  high- 
handed action  he  did  with  a  desire  to  conserve  public  peace 
and  safety.  His  conduct,  however,  incensed  many  leading 
men  in  the  city,  who  resented  the  illegality  of  his  course,3 

1  See  Josephus :  Ant.  XX.  9,  1,  and  Eusebius :  H.  E.  II.  23, 21  sq.,  where  the 
passage  is  quoted. 

2  Hegesippus  (in  Eusebius,  11.23)  represents  the  Scribes  and  the  Pharisees  as 
the  moving  spirits  in  the  execution  of  James,  and  says  nothing  about  the  agency 
of  Ananus.    But  his  reference  to  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  is  so  general  (in 
one  case  he  says  "the  Jews  and  Scribes  and  Pharisees")  that  little  weight 
can  be  placed  upon  it.    In  his  day  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  were  the  leaders 
among  the  Jews,  and  he  probably  simply  took  it  for  granted  on  the  basis  of 
that  fact  and  of  their  known  hostility  to  Jesus  that  they  were  instrumental  in 
compassing  James'  death.    He  was  well  acquainted  with  Jewish  Christianity 
in  the  second  century,  but  he  knew  very  little  about  the  actual  condition  of 
things  in  Palestine  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.    Where  it  contradicts 
the  clear,  concise,  and  consistent  account  of  Josephus,  the  story  related  by 
Hegesippus  cannot  be  relied  upon. 

8  Josephus  refers  to  those  persons  who  disapproved  of  the  action  of  Ananus 
as  men  skilled  in  the  law,  and  the  probability  is  that  they  were  Pharisees. 
The  Pharisees  were  hereditary  enemies  of  the  Sadducees,  and  were  very  likely 
friendly  to  James  because  of  his  exceeding  piety  and  his  scrupulousness  in  the 
observance  of  the  law. 


THE    DEVELOPING    CHURCH  561 

and  the  result  was  that  complaints  were  lodged  against 
him  with  the  new  procurator,  Albinus,  and  Agrippa,  who 
had  appointed  Ananus,  was  obliged  to  depose  him  after 
he  had  held  office  only  three  months. 

Though  the  Christians  were  relieved  from  farther  attacks 
of  the  kind  by  the  arrival  of  Albinus,  the  years  that  fol- 
lowed were  troublous  ones  for  all  the  Jews.  Since  the 
death  of  Herod  Agrippa  I.,  conditions  had  been  growing 
steadily  worse  until  they  had  become  almost  unbearable. 
The  corruptness  of  the  procurators  left  crime  and  violence 
a  free  field,  and  their  unjust  and  tyrannical  rule  drove  the 
people  to  madness.  The  land  was  almost  in  a  state  of 
anarchy,  and  between  the  rapacity  of  the  procurators  and 
the  violence  of  the  mob  neither  life  nor  property  was  safe. 
The  Jews  were  naturally  impatient  and  restless  under 
Roman  rule.  Their  belief  in  their  divine  election  made 
it  peculiarly  difficult  for  them  to  submit  quietly  to  the 
authority  of  a  foreign  power,  and  certainly  no  people  were 
ever  given  greater  cause  for  rebellion  than  the  Jews  during 
the  period  of  the  later  procurators.  The  wiser  and  cooler- 
headed  men  counselled  patience  and  submission,  for  they 
saw  the  utter  folly  of  an  attempt  to  throw  off  the  Roman 
yoke ;  but  the  more  restless  and  adventurous  spirits  were 
burning  to  avenge  themselves  upon  their  oppressors,  and 
were  eager  for  war.  Saner  counsels  could  prevail  little 
with  those  who  believed  as  profoundly  as  the  Jews  did  in 
their  divine  election ;  and  when  under  Gessius  Florus,  who 
became  procurator  in  64,  injustice,  oppression,  and  tyranny 
reached  a  climax,  the  people  at  large  threw  caution  to  the 
winds,  and  with  the  confidence  that  God  would  in  some 
way  come  to  their  rescue  and  vindicate  their  cause,  they 
came  out  in  the  year  66  in  open  rebellion  against  Rome, 
and  the  war  was  fairly  begun.1  After  the  entire  land  had 
been  subdued  by  Vespasian,  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  itself 
was  finally  undertaken  in  the  spring  of  70  by  his  sou 
Titus.  In  September  of  the  same  year,  after  a  stubborn 

1  Our  chief  source  for  a  knowledge  of  the  Jewish  war  is  Josephus'  Helium 
Judaicum.    Compare  Schiirer,  I.e.  I.  S.  502  sq.  (Eng.  Trans.,  Div.  I.  Vol.  II. 
p.  207  sq.),  and  O.  Holtzmaiin  :  Das  Ende  des  jiidischen  Staatsioesens  und  die 
Entstehung  des  Christenthums,  S.  636  sq. 
2o 


562  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

and  desperate  resistance,  the  city  fell  and  the  national  exist- 
ence of  the  Jews  came  to  an  end.  Jerusalem,  the  historic 
centre  of  their  religious  and  national  life,  about  which  all 
the  glories  of  Israel  had  clustered  for  centuries,  and  where 
it  had  long  been  believed  that  the  Messiah  would  one  day 
establish  the  throne  of  his  power,  was  levelled  to  the 
ground,  the  temple  was  utterly  destroyed,  the  inhabitants 
of  the  city  were  slain  or  sold  into  captivity,  and  only  a 
Roman  garrison  was  left  upon  the  scene.  No  other  issue 
was  to  have  been  expected ;  but  their  doom  was  hastened 
by  the  stupendous  folly  and  fatuousness  of  the  Jews  them- 
selves, who,  instead  of  uniting  all  their  forces  and  present- 
ing a  solid  front  to  their  common  enemy,  carried  on  a  con- 
stant and  devastating  warfare  with  each  other  which  sapped 
their  strength  and  wasted  their  resources,  so  that  when  the 
Romans  finally  began  the  siege  of  Jerusalem,  they  were 
opposed  only  by  the  worn-out  survivors  of  an  internecine 
conflict  which  had  lasted  for  two  years,  and  whose  horrors 
almost  pass  belief. 

Our  information  touching  the  Christians  of  Jerusalem 
during  this  terrible  period  is  very  slight,  but  from  brief 
references  in  our  sources  and  from  our  general  knowledge 
of  their  character  and  principles  we  can  gain  a  fairly  accu- 
rate idea  of  their  course.  They  were  doubtless  among  those 
who  had  deprecated  the  war  from  the  beginning  and  had 
desired  peace.  Such  a  struggle  as  their  countrymen,  un- 
der the  lead  of  the  restless  and  turbulent  zealots,  were 
bent  upon  plunging  into  was  utterly  opposed  to  the  teach- 
ing of  their  Master,  and  they  could  hardly  engage  in  it  with- 
out violating  their  principles.  They  seem  to  have  clung  to 
Jerusalem  as  long  as  they  could,  in  the  hope  that  peace 
might  be  concluded  before  the  war  reached  its  walls,  and 
that  the  sacred  city  itself  might  be  saved.  But  when 
finally  they  saw  that  matters  had  gone  so  far  that  its  de- 
struction was  inevitable,  and  that  to  remain  in  it  meant 
either  to  take  an  active  part  in  the  approaching  struggle 
or  to  be  sacrificed  to  the  rage  of  their  fellow-citizens,  they 
followed  the  example  of  many  others  and  fled  from  the 
doomed  city.  Crossing  the  Jordan,  they  made  their  way 


THE  DEVELOPING   CHURCH  563 

in  a  body  to  Pella,  a  city  of  Perea,  which  was  largely  Gen- 
tile and  lay  outside  the  theatre  of  war.1  Eusebius  records 
that  they  left  Jerusalem  in  response  to  a  divine  revelation,2 
and  the  report  doubtless  represents  their  own  belief.  The 
step  was  a  decisive  one,  and  they  can  hardly  have  taken  it 
unless  they  were  convinced  that  it  was  in  accordance  with 
the  divine  will.  It  meant  not  necessarily  a  permanent, 
but  certainly  a  temporary  abandonment  of  their  effort  to 
convert  the  Jewish  nation  to  faith  in  Christ ;  and,  more 
than  that,  it  meant  a  serious  break  with  their  own  people, 
and  a  seeming  violation  of  their  most  sacred  duty  as  loyal 
and  faithful  Jews.  They  possibly  hoped  that  their  de- 
parture would  be  but  temporary,  and  that  after  the  war 
was  ended  and  peace  concluded  they  might  return  and 
labor  as  before  for  the  conversion  of  their  brethren.  But 
their  desertion  of  the  city  in  its  hour  of  need  so  incensed 
their  countrymen,  that  from  that  time  on  they  were  re- 
garded by  them  with  the  bitterest  and  most  relentless 
hatred.  They  had  proved  themselves  apostates,  and  all 
their  faithfulness  and  scrupulosity  in  the  observance  of  the 
Jewish  law  now  counted  for  nothing,  and  their  opportunity 
to  win  their  brethren  to  faith  in  Jesus  was  forever  gone. 

The  flight  of  the  disciples  to  Pella  and  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  which  followed  mark  an  epoch  in  the  history  of 
JeAvish  Christianity.  Hitherto  they  had  constituted  an  in- 
tegral part  of  the  Jewish  people  ;  now  the  bond  that  united 

1  See  Eusebius:  H.  E.  III.  5,  3,  and  Epiphanius:  De  mensuris  et  ponderi- 
biis,  c.  15.    Harnack  conjectures  that  the  report  of  Eusebius  was  taken  from 
Aristo  of  Pella,  a  Jewish  Christian  writer  of  the  early  second  century.    (Texte 
und  Untersuchungen,  I.  1,  S.  124  sq.)    Whether  the  conjecture  be  sound  or 
not,  there  is  at  any  rate  no  reason  to  doubt  the  accuracy  of  the  report.    On 
Pella  see  Schurer,  I.e.  II.  S.  99  sq.  (Eng.  Trans.,  Div.  II.  Vol.  I.  p.  113).    The 
date  of  the  departure  of  the  Christians  from  Jerusalem,  we  do  not  know, 
but  it  may  be  assumed  that  they  remained  in  the  city  as  long  as  there  was 
any  hope  that  peace  might  be  concluded  and  the  impending  struggle  be 
averted,  that  is,  probably  until  the  latter  part  of  the  year  69. 

2  It  has  been  suggested  that  certain  passages  in  the  apocalyptic  discourses 
of  Jesus,  recorded  in  the  Gospels  (as,  for  instance,  Mark  xiii.  7  sq.,  14  sq. ; 
Luke  xxi.  20  sq.),  date  from  this  time.    Cf.  Weiffenbach :  Der  Wiederkunfts- 
gedanke  Jesu,  S.  175  sq. ;    Wendt,  Lehre  Jesu,  I.   S.  20;  Weizsacker,   I.e. 
S.  371  sq. ;  and  O.  Holtzmann,  I.e.  S.  669.      And  so  various  passages  of  sup- 
posed Jewish  origin  in  the  Apocalypse  of  John  have  been  dated  from  this 
period  by  several  scholars.    See  Weizsacker,  ibid.;  and  O.  Holtzmann,  I.e. 
S.  657  sq, 


564  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

them  to  their  countrymen  was  severed,  and  their  indepen- 
dent existence  was  begun.  Thus  the  impulse  was  given  to 
organize  themselves  into  a  separate  church,  or  ecclesiastical 
body  corporate,  and  it  cannot  have  been  long  before  it 
was  acted  upon.1  The  first  step  in  this  direction  of  which 
we  have  any  record  was  the  election  of  Symeon  to  be  the 
official  head  of  the  Christian  community.2  This  Symeon 
was  a  nephew  of  Joseph,  and  consequently  a  cousin  of 
Jesus,3  and  that  fact  doubtless  had  much  to  do  with  his 
selection.4  Hegesippus  and  later  writers  call  him  a 
bishop,  but  it  is  hardly  likely  that  he  was  so  called  by  his 
Christian  brethren.5  It  is  more  probable  that  he  had  some 

1  Cf .  Loening :  Gemeindeverfassung  des  Urchristenthums,  S.  106  sq. 

2  See  Hegesippus  in  Eusebius :  H.  E.  IV.  22 ;  and  Eusebius  himself  in  H.  E. 
II.  11.    Neither  of  them  indicates  the  exact  place  or  time  of  the  appointment 
of  Symeon.    Hegesippus  says  "  after  the  death  of  James  "  ;  Eusebius,  "  after 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  "  ;  and  neither  of  them  specifies  where  the  choice 
was  made.   Symeon  was  doubtless  prominent  among  the  Christians  long  before 
they  left  Jerusalem,  and  after  the  death  of  James  he  was  very  likely  the  lead- 
ing man  among  them,  but  he  can  hardly  have  been  chosen  official  head  of  the 
church  until  after  the  break  with  Judaism  had  taken  place.    Even  if  chosen 
in  Pella,  he  might  of  course  be  regarded  as  the  head  of  the  church  of  Jerusa- 
lem; for  Pella  was  only  a  temporary  asylum,  not  a  permanent  home,  and 
doubtless  the  Christians  there  still  thought  of  themselves  as  constituting  the 
Mother  Church,  the  church  of  Jerusalem.    It  is  perhaps  worthy  of  notice  that, 
in  speaking  of  the  flight  of  the  Christians  from  Jerusalem,  Eusebius  mentions 
no  bishop  or  ruler,  but  says  that  they  left  in  obedience  to  a  command  given 
by  revelation  to  "  approved  men  "  (86/a/ioi)  among  them.    Hegesippus  reports 
that  there  was  a  rival  candidate  for  the  position  to  which  Symeon  was  chosen, 
in  the  person  of  a  certain  Thebuthis,  and  that  he  started  a  schism  in  the  church 
because  he  was  defeated  (Eusebius,  IV.  22,  5).    Little  reliance,  however,  can 
be  placed  upon  the  report.    The  fathers  were  fond  of  making  disappointed 
ambition  the  ground  of  heresy  and  schism,  —  an  interesting  indication  of  the 
eagerness  with  which  ecclesiastical  office  must  have  been  sought  by  the  Chris- 
tians of  the  early' centuries.    See  my  translation  of  Eusebius,  note  in  loc. 

8  According  to  Eusebius  (H.  E.  III.  11),  who  appeals  to  Hegesippus  as  his 
authority,  Symeon  was  the  son  of  Clopas,  a  brother  of  Joseph.  Hegesippus 
himself,  in  the  passage  quoted  by  Eusebius  (H.  E.  IV.  22),  says  only  that 
Symeon  was  a  son  of  Clopas,  the  Lord's  uncle.  Eusebius'  opinion,  therefore, 
that  Clopas  was  a  brother,  and  not  merely  a  brother-in-law,  of  Joseph,  m:»y 
have  been  only  an  inference  from  Hegesippus'  more  general  statement,  or  in 
some  other  passage  not  preserved  Hegesippus  may  have  said  what  Enschius 
says.  Clopas  is  mentioned  in  John  xix.  25  as  the  husband  of  a  certain  Mary, 
who  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  sister  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  as  she  often  is.  See 
my  translation  of  Eusebius,  Bk.  III.  chap.  11,  notes  4  and  6. 

4  Hegesippus  says  explicitly  (Eusebius :  //.  E.  IV.  22,  4)  that  Symeon  was 
chosen  "  because  he  was  a  cousin  of  the  Lord." 

6  Loening,  I.e.  S.  108,  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  term  ^TT/O-KOTTOS  was 
a  common  title  of  municipal  officials  in  the  region  east  of  the  Jordan,  and  so 
thinks  that  Symeon  may  have  been  called  a  bishop  by  his  Christian  brethren. 


THE  DEVELOPING   CHURCH  565 

such  title  as  archisynagogus,  which  was  the  name  borne 
by  the  head  of  the  Ebionitic  congregations  of  the  fourth 
century.1  Whether  the  council  of  elders  which  consti- 
tuted the  governing  body  in  those  congregations  at  that 
later  date  came  into  existence  at  this  time,  we  have  no 
means  of  determining. 

How  long  the  Christians  of  Jerusalem  remained  in  Pella, 
we  do  not  know.  Epiphanius2  reports  that  they  returned 
to  Jerusalem  some  time  after  the  destruction  of  the  city, 
and  Eusebius  implies  the  same  thing  when  he  gives  a  list 
of  the  bishops  who  presided  over  the  church  there  until 
the  city  was  again  destroyed  by  Hadrian.3  But  we  have 
no  information  that  Jerusalem  was  anything  more  than  a 
Roman  garrison  during  the  interval,4  and  the  report  is 
probably  a  mistake.  At  the  same  time,  we  learn  from 
Hegesippus5  that  Symeon  suffered  martyrdom  under 
Atticus,  who  was  governor  of  the  province  of  Judea  in 
the  time  of  Trajan,  and  hence  it  may  be  assumed  that  the 
Christian  community  of  which  he  was  the  head  had  re- 
turned to  Judea  before  that  time.6 

Of  their  fortunes  during  the  latter  part  of  the  first  cen- 
tury we  know  almost  nothing.  Hegesippus7  reports  that 
two  grandchildren  of  Judas,  the  brother  of  Jesus,  were 
arrested  and  taken  before  Domitian,  because  they  were  de- 

But  it  is  unlikely,  conservative  Jews  as  they  were,  that  they  would  have 
adopted  such  a  title.  Their  organization  took  the  place  of  the  organization 
under  which  they  had  been  living  as  Jews  in  Jerusalem,  and  whatever  officers 
they  chose  would  naturally  hear  familiar  titles, 

1  See  Epiphanius:  Hser.  XXX.  18. 

2  Epiphanius :  De  mensuris  et  ponderibus,  chap.  15. 

3  Eusehius :  H.  E.  IV.  5.    Cf .  also  his  Dernonstratio  Evangelica,  III.  5. 
No  reliance  can  be  placed  upon  Eusebius'  list  of  fifteen  bishops.    They  may 
have  been  simply  prominent  men  among  the  Jewish  Christians  of  Judea,  or 
elders  in  one  or  another  Christian  community,  and  the  assignment  of  them 
to  the  position  of  bishops  in  Jerusalem  itself  may  have  been  mere  inference. 

4  See  Schiirer,  I.e.  I.  S.  5(59  sq.  (Eng.  Trans.,  Div.  I.  Vol.  II.  p.  297). 

6  In  Eusebius :  H.  E.  III.  32.  According  to  Hegesippus  Symeon  was  con- 
demned both  as  a  descendant  of  David  and  as  a  Christian,  and  was  crucified 
at  the  great  age  of  120  years ;  which  probably  means  no  more  than  that  he  was 
very  old  when  he  was  put  to  death. 

0  In  the  time  of  Hadrian,  also,  there  were  apparently  many  Jewish  Chris- 
tians in  Judea,  as  appears  from  the  hostility  shown  them  by  Barcocheba.  See 
Justin  Martyr :  Apol.  I.  31. 

?  In  Eusebius :  H.  E.  III.  20. 


566  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

scendants  of  David  and  relatives  of  Christ,  and  it  was 
feared  that  they  might  start  a  Messianic  movement  and 
incite  the  Jews  to  another  rebellion.  Domitian,  however, 
convinced  himself  of  their  innocence  and  harmlessness, 
and  set  them  free.  It  is  implied  in  the  same  passage 
that  the  Christians  of  Judea  had  before  this  been  perse- 
cuted by  Domitian,  and  it  is  quite  possible  that  they  had 
suffered  with  their  fellow-countrymen,  who  are  said  to  have 
been  treated  with  great  severity  by  Vespasian,  Domitian, 
and  Trajan.1  But  it  is  not  likely  that  any  of  these 
emperors  instituted  a  special  persecution  against  the 
Christians  of  the  country,  for  they  can  hardly  have  taken 
the  pains  to  distinguish  between  them  and  their  Jewish 
brethren.  Whatever  may  have  been  true  in  other  parts 
of  the  world  at  this  time,  in  Judea,  undoubtedly,  all  Jews 
were  Jews  in  the  eyes  of  the  Roman  state,  whether  Chris- 
tian believers  or  not. 

After  the  uprising  of  the  Jews  under  the  leadership  of 
Barcocheba,2  Hadrian  built  a  heathen  city,  ^Elia  Capitolina, 
upon  the  site  of  Jerusalem,  and  forbade  Jews  to  enter  it. 
Jewish  Christianity  therefore  could  no  longer  exist  there ; 
and  in  the  province,  as  a  whole,  many  of  the  Christians 
gave  up  their  exclusiveness  and  went  over  into  the 
world-church.  It  was  natural  that  this  should  be  so. 
The  destruction  of  Jerusalem  was  interpreted  by  most 
Christians  as  God's  vengeance  upon  the  Jewish  people  for 
their  rejection  of  Christ,  and  it  was  accepted  by  many  as 
an  indication  that  all  the  prerogatives  of  Israel  had  passed 
over  to  the  church  of  the  world  at  large,  and  that  the  old 
wall  of  partition  between  Jews  and  Gentiles  had  been  for- 
ever broken  down.  Thus  the  tragic  event  finally  led  many 
that  had  hitherto  clung  tenaciously  to  their  earlier  princi- 
ples, to  draw  the  conclusion  that  had  been  drawn  long 
before  by  Paul  and  by  multitudes  of  their  brethren  out- 
side of  Palestine ;  and  the  distinction  between  the  Jewish 

1  See  Hegesippus  in  Eusebius :  H.  E.  III.  12,  20,  32 ;  also  the  notes  in  my 
edition  of  Eusebius,  and  Schiirer,  I.e.  I.  S.  555  sq.  (Eng.  Trans.,  Div.  I.  Vol.  II. 
p.  279). 

2  The  rebellion  began  in  132,  and  was  quelled  in  135,  and  Barcocheba  ("  son 
of  a  star  "),  who  had  pretended  to  be  the  Messiah,  was  slain. 


01-  THE 

UNIVERSITY 

OF 


THE  DEVELOPING 

and   Gentile  wings  of  the  Christian   church  was   finally 
obliterated. 

But  there  were  other  Jewish  Christians  who  could  not 
thus  give  up  their  ancestral  faith,  and  to  whom  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem  did  not  mean  the  abrogation  of  the 
Jewish  law  and  the  abolition  of  the  wall  of  partition  that 
separated  Jews  and  Gentiles.  Though  repudiated  by  their 
own  race  as  apostates  to  another  faith,  they  believed  them- 
selves to  be  the  elect  remnant  of  God's  people,  and  they 
continued  to  observe  the  Jewish  law  in  all  its  strictness, 
and  to  hold  themselves  rigidly  aloof  from  the  Christians 
of  the  Gentile  world.  They  clung  closely  together  and 
went  their  separate  and  independent  way,  hated  by  their 
Jewish  brethren,  and  regarded  with  pity  and  finally  con- 
tempt by  their  Christian  brethren  of  the  world  at  large. 
As  time  passed,  they  withdrew  constantly  more  and  more 
into  themselves  and  became  ever  harder  and  narrower  in 
their  estimate  of  the  world  outside.  As  the  Judaism  of 
the  period  succeeding  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  was 
more  bigoted  and  exclusive  than  it  had  ever  been,  so  the 
Jewish  Christianity  of  the  same  period  exhibited  the  same 
tendency.  In  the  second  century  these  Jewish  Christians 
acquired  the  name  of  Ebionites,  or  "poor  men,"  and  were 
regarded  as  heretics  by  the  church  at  large.1  In  their  con- 
tinued observance  of  the  Jewish  law,  in  their  bitter  hos- 
tility to  the  apostle  Paul,  in  their  rejection  of  his  writings 
and  of  the  entire  canon  of  the  New  Testament,  with  the 
exception  of  a  Gospel  of  Matthew,  which  was  not  identical 
with  the  Gospel  current  in  the  church  at  large,  and  finally 
in  their  refusal  to  follow  that  church  in  its  Christological 
development,  and  in  their  insistence  upon  the  belief  that 
Jesus  was  a  mere  man,  they  were  strikingly  at  variance  with 
the  Christians  of  the  Roman  world  and  their  condemnation 
by  the  latter  was  inevitable.  Thus  the  Jewish  Christianity 
of  the  Mother  Church  finally  eventuated  in  the  heretical 
Ebionism  of  the  second  and  following  centuries,  and  the 
Gentile  church  revenged  itself  upon  the  Judaizers  of  the 

1  Upon  the  Ebionites  see  the  notes  in  my  edition  of  Eusebius,  Bk.  III. 
chap. 27. 


568  THE   APOSTOLIC  AGE 

apostolic  age.  The  future  was  not  with  these  Ebionitic 
Jewish  Christians.  They  were  out  of  the  current  of  prog- 
ress, and  it  was  inevitable  that  they  should  ultimately  pass 
away.  In  the  fourth  century  they  were  numerous  in  the 
country  lying  east  of  the  Jordan,1  but  they  finally  dis- 
appeared altogether. 

And  yet,  though  the  history  of  Jewish  Christianity, 
after  the  time  when  Paul  began  his  work  among  the 
Gentiles,  thus  lies  apart  from  the  history  of  the  develop- 
ing church,  the  Christians  of  Jerusalem  left  a  rich  legacy 
to  that  church  in  the  knowledge  they  transmitted  of  the 
work  and  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  It  was  there  that  his 
own  disciples  were  gathered,  and  it  was  there  that  the 
impression  of  his  personality  was  most  vividly  felt  and 
the  memory  of  his  words  and  deeds  most  carefully  cher- 
ished. The  church  of  Jerusalem  was  essentially  a  con- 
servative church,  and  it  was  concerned,  above  all  else,  to 
be  true  to  the  teaching  and  example  of  Christ.2  But  it 
was  natural  that,  in  their  desire  to  govern  their  lives  in 
accordance  with  the  principles  and  precepts  of  the  Mas- 
ter, the  disciples  should  bring  together  his  most  strik- 
ing and  important  utterances,  from  which  light  could  be 
gained  as  to  the  right  course  to  be  followed  in  the  vari- 
ous relations  in  which  they  found  themselves  placed,  and 
it  was  natural  also  that  his  words  touching  the  future 
kingdom  in  which  their  interest  so  largely  centred, 
should  be  gathered  up  and  appealed  to  constantly  for 
inspiration  and  encouragement.  It  was  not  to  be  expected 
that  the  tradition  should  fix  itself  at  first  in  any  stereo- 
typed way,  or  that  any  hard  and  fast  lines  should  be 
drawn.  There  was  a  rich  store  of  teaching  in  the  memory 
of  Jesus'  own  disciples;  and  as  new  questions  were  con- 
stantly arising,  different  parts  of  that  teaching  would  be 
drawn  upon,  and  it  would  be  employed  in  many  different 

1  See  Eusebius:  De  locis  Hebraicis,  15;  Epiphanius:  Hser.  XXIX.  7,  XXX. 
2 ;  Jerome :  De  vir.  ill.  3.    Compare  also  the  statement  of  Julius  Africanus,  of 
the  early  third  century,  in  Eusebius:  H.  E.  I.  7,  14. 

2  It  was  in  part  this  design  not  to  go  beyond  Christ  at  any  point  that  made 
them  so  tenacious  of  their  Judaism,  which  had  been  his  Judaism,  and  which 
he  had  not  directed  them  to  abandon. 


THE  DEVELOPING  CHURCH  569 

ways.  Thus  there  doubtless  existed  in  Jerusalem,  at  a 
comparatively  early  day,  collections  of  Christ's  sayings  of 
greater  or  less  extent,  and  grouped  in  one  way  or  another 
to  meet  this  or  that  particular  need.  The  object  leading 
to  their  formation  was  not  historical  but  practical,  and 
the  form  and  extent  of  the  collections  naturally  varied 
with  the  need.1 

The  first  written  collection  of  Christ's  words  of  which 
we  have  any  definite  knowledge  is  the  so-called  Logia; 
but  there  can  be  little  doubt,  from  the  way  in  which  the 
utterances  of  Christ  are  grouped  in  that  work,  that  the 
process  which  has  been  referred  to  had  been  going  on  for 
some  time  before  the  Logia  were  compiled.  The  first  one 
to  mention  them  is  Papias  of  Hierapolis,  a  writer  of  the 
early  second  century,  who  records  that  "Matthew  com- 
posed the  Logia  in  the  Hebrew  language,  and  every  one 
interpreted  them  as  best  he  could."2  The  work  thus 
referred  to  is  no  longer  extant,  but  it  is  possible  to  gain 
some  idea  of  its  form  and  contents  from  a  comparison  of 
the  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  in  which  large  use  was 
made  of  it.3  Probably  neither  Matthew  nor  Luke  incor- 
porated the  whole  of  the  work  in  his  Gospel,  and  it 
may  have  contained  not  only  some  passages  that  are 
found  only  in  one  or  the  other  of  them,  but  also  much 
that  is  found  only  in  uncanonical  writers,  and  still  more 
that  has  perished  altogether.  According  to  Papias,  the 
original  Logia  were  composed  in  Hebrew  (or  Aramaic), 
and  the  report  is  doubtless  true.4  It  is  clear,  therefore, 
that  they  were  intended  primarily  for  disciples  of  Jewish 
birth,  and  more  particularly  for  residents  of  Palestine ; 
and  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  they  proceeded  from  the 
circle  of  Christians  with  which  we  have  been  dealing. 

1  Upon  the  influences  that  led  to  the  composition  of  the  Gospels,  see  espe- 
cially Weizsacker,  I.e.  S.  369  sq.  (Eng.  Trans.,  II.  p.  32  sq.). 

2  In  Eusebius :  H.  E.  III.  39. 

»  For  attempted  reconstructions  of  the  Logia,  see  Weiss :  Das  Matthaeus- 
Evangelium  und  seine  Lukasparallelen  (1876),  and  Wendt:  Lehre  Jesu,  I. 
S.  44  sq. 

4  Cf .  also  Irenseus:  Adr.  Hser.  III.  1,1;  Pantsenus  (as  reported  by  Euse- 
bius: H.  E.  V.  10);  Origen  (quoted  by  Eusebius:  H.  E.  VI.  25);  Jerome: 
De  vir.  ill.  3;  Epiphanius:  Hser.  XXIX.  9. 


570  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE 

In  line  with  this  fact  that  the  Logia  were  of  Jewish 
origin,  and  were  intended  for  Jewish  readers,  is  the 
farther  fact  that  their  compiler  apparently  thought  of 
Christianity  as  intended  only  for  Jews.  His  horizon  was 
no  broader  than  the  Jewish  people,  and  he  quotes  words 
of  Christ  which  have  a  decidedly  particularistic  tendency.1 
At  the  same  time  he  does  not  enter  into  any  discussion, 
nor  does  he  represent  Christ  as  entering  into  any  discus- 
sion, with  those  who  maintained  that  the  Gospel  was  for 
Gentiles  as  well  as  for  Jews.  The  only  controversy  which 
is  hinted  at  in  his  work  is  that  between  the  unbelieving 
Jews  and  the  followers  of  Jesus.  It  cannot  be  supposed 
that  the  work  was  compiled  before  the  question  of  the 
admission  of  Gentiles  had  been  raised,  and  we  must  there- 
fore conclude  that,  while  the  author  was  a  man  of  con- 
servative views,  he  was  without  controversial  temper  and 
interest.  Though  the  Logia  were  primarily  intended  for 
Christians  who  understood  Hebrew,  they  were  known  and 
used  at  an  early  day  by  those  also  whose  every-day  speech 
was  Greek.  Papias  tells  us  that  every  one  interpreted 
them  as  best  he  could.  But  it  could  not  be  long  after 
they  had  made  their  way  into  the  Greek-speaking  world 
before  Greek  translations  of  them  were  put  into  writing 
for  the  use  of  those  who  knew  no  Hebrew,  and  who  were 
unable  to  interpret  them  for  themselves. 

The  date  of  the  Logia  we  do  not  know,2  but  it  is  evi- 
dent that  they  were  compiled  before  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem ;  for  in  the  eschatological  passages  that  event 
and  the  end  of  the  world  are  not  in  any  way  distinguished. 
But  they  cannot  be  pushed  back  much  beyond  the  great 
catastrophe,  for  the  development  that  preceded  their  pro- 
duction must  have  required  at  least  some  decades.  That 
their  compiler  was  Matthew  is  asserted  by  Papias,  and 
there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  the  truth  of  his  statement.3 

1  Cf.,  e.g.,  Matt.  x.  5,  6,  xv.  22. 

2  Irenaeus:  Adv.  Hssr.  III.  1,  1  (quoted  also  by  Eusebius:  H.  E.  V.  8),  says 
that  "Matthew  published  his  Gospel  among  the  Hebrews  in  their  own  lan- 
guage, while  Peter  and  Paul  were  preaching  and  founding  the  church  in  Rome." 

8  We  know  nothing  about  the  character  %or  career  of  Matthew,  and  conse- 
quently have  no  data  to  go  upon,  except  the  statements  of  Papias  and  other 


THE   DEVELOPING   CHURCH  571 

It  is  hardly  to  be  supposed  that  no  other  collections  of 
Christ's  words  were  made  than  the  Logia  of  Matthew.  It 
is  probable  that  Luke  used  another  source  than  the  Logia 
in  chapters  ix.-xvii.  of  his  Gospel,  and  that  he  drew  from 
it,  for  instance,  the  parables  of  the  good  Samaritan,  the 
foolish  rich  man,  the  prodigal  son,  the  unrighteous  steward, 
Dives  and  Lazarus,  the  unjust  judge,  and  the  Pharisee  and 
Publican.  Most  of  these  parables  bear  a  common  charac- 
ter which  distinguishes  them  from  those  recorded  in  the 
Logia,  and  which  points  to  a  compiler  of  a  somewhat 
broader  spirit  and  more  humanistic  temper  than  Matthew; 
to  one  who  belonged,  in  fact,  to  another  circle  and  was  in 
touch  with  mission  work  in  the  world  at  large. 

The  impulse  which  led  the  disciples  to  gather  up 
Christ's  words  and  commit  them  to  writing,  led  them  to 
treat  his  deeds  in  a  similar  way.  The  historical  motive 
seems  not  to  have  operated  in  the  latter  case  any  more 
than  in  the  former.  It  was  the  desire  to  secure  guidance 
for  the  conduct  of  the  Christian  life  that  led  the  early 
disciples  to  appeal  to  Jesus'  example  as  well  as  to  his 
precepts ;  and  in  their  efforts  to  win  their  neighbors  to 
belief  in  his  Messiahship,  it  was  natural  that  the  corre- 
spondences between  the  events  of  his  life  and  the  predic- 
tions of  the  prophets  should  be  pointed  out  and  emphasized. 
And  so  the  tendency  arose  to  fix  the  tradition  of  Christ's 
deeds,  and  to  group  together  those  that  illustrated  and 
confirmed  this  or  that  principle  of  living,  or  that  brought 
out  most  clearly  his  goodness,  his  wisdom,  and  his  power, 
and  thus  made  the  strongest  impression  upon  unbelievers, 
or  that  furnished  by  their  fulfilment  of  prophecy  the  best 
evidence  of  his  Messiahship. 

The  first  account  of  the  deeds  of  Jesus  of  which  we 
have  any  explicit  information  is  the  Gospel  of  Mark.  In 
the  passage  already  quoteft  from  Papias,  occur  these  words : 
"Mark,  having  become  the  interpreter  of  Peter,  .wrote 
down  accurately  whatever  he  remembered  of  the  things 

later  fathers.  Eusebius  (H.  E.  III.  24)  says  that  Matthew,  "when  he  was 
about  to  go  to  other  peoples,  committed  his  Gospel  to  writing  in  his  native 
tongue,"  but  his  authority  for  the  first  clause  of  the  sentence  we  do  not  know. 


572  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

said  or  done  by  Christ,  not  however  in  order,  for  he  had 
not  heard  the  Lord,  nor  had  he  followed  him ;  but  after- 
wards, as  I  said,  he  followed  Peter,  who  adapted  his  in- 
structions to  the  needs  of  those  who  heard  him,  but 
without  attempting  to  give  a  connected  account  of  the 
Lord's  utterances.  So  that  Mark  did  not  err  when  he 
thus  wrote  some  things  down  as  he  remembered  them ; 
for  he  was  careful  of  one  thing,  —  not  to  omit  any  of  the 
things  which  he  had  heard,  nor  to  falsify  anything  in 
them." 1  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  the  general  accuracy 
of  this  report,  and  there  is  no  sufficient  ground  for  refer- 
ring Papias'  words  to  any  other  work  than  our  second 
Gospel. 

That  Gospel  was  probably  not  written  in  Judea,  and  yet 
its  author  was  originally  a  member  of  the  Mother  Church, 
and  he  got  much  of  his  information  from  the  apostle 
Peter ; 2  so  that  the  account  which  he  gives  may  be  traced 
back  not  so  directly  as  the  Logia,  but,  nevertheless,  ulti- 
mately to  the  Christians  of  Jerusalem.  There  is  evidence, 
moreover,  that  Mark's  Gospel  had  behind  it  not  simply  the 
oral  teaching  of  Peter,  but  also  written  accounts  more  or 
less  brief  and  fragmentary  of  some  of  Christ's  deeds,3 
which  may  well  have  arisen  in  the  Mother  Church  in  the 
way  already  indicated. 

Though  the  Gospel  of  Mark  differs  from  the  Logia  in 
being  an  account  of  Christ's  ministry  rather  than  a  collec- 
tion of  his  utterances,  it  cannot  be  said  that  its  author  was 
not  interested  in  the  words  of  Jesus,  for  they  fill  more 
than  a  quarter  of  his  work.  They  constitute,  in  fact, 
along  with  his  deeds,  an  essential  part  of  the  picture  of 
Jesus,  the  Messiah  and  Saviour,  which  it  was  the  writer's 
aim  to  draw  as  clearly  and  faithfully  as  he  could.  It  was 
not  his  purpose  to  record  the  inyer  life  and  experiences  of 
Jesus,  or  his  mental  and  spiritual  development,  but  simply 
to  give  an  account  of  his  ministry,  or,  in  other  words,  to 
present  him  as  he  appeared  to  those  that  followed  him 

1  Eusebius :  H.  E.  III.  .19,  15.  2  See  also  p.  603,  below. 

8  This  is  made  evident  by  the  visible  welding  together  at  various  points  of 
independent  narratives.  See  Wendt:  Lehre  Jesu,  1.  S.  9  sq.,  22  sq. 


THE  DEVELOPING  CHURCH  573 

during  the  period  between  his  baptism  and  his  resurrec- 
tion ;  to  show  him  to  others  who  had  never  seen  him  as 
he  had  shown  himself  to  them.  In  carrying  out  this 
purpose,  Mark  followed  the  simple  and  straightforward 
plan  of  recounting,  without  comment,  such  events  in 
Christ's  life  and  such  utterances  as  were  known  to  him, 
or  seemed  most  characteristic,  as  nearly  as  possible  in 
chronological  order.  He  wrote,  moreover,  in  a  picturesque 
and  graphic,  though  decidedly  colloquial  style,  and  the 
result  is  a  portrait  of  Christ  which,  though  it  is  drawn 
only  in  barest  outline,  is  more  vivid  than  that  presented 
in  any  of  the  other  Gospels,  and  carries  upon  its  very  face 
the  marks  of  truth. 

The  Hebraistic  style  of  the  Gospel  indicates  that  it  was 
written  .by  a  Jew.  But  it  is  certain  at  the  same  time  that 
it  was  written  in  Greek,  and  that  it  was  consequently  not 
intended  for  Palestinian  Jews,  —  a  fact  which  is  confirmed 
by  the  translation  of  such  Aramaic  expressions  as  are  occa- 
sionally employed.1  Nor  was  the  work  intended  primarily 
for  Jews  outside  of  Palestine,  as  is  clear  from  xiv.  12, 
where  the  author  explains  "  on  the  first  day  of  unleavened 
bread,"  by  the  words  "  when  they  sacrificed  the  passover." 
In  fact,  he  had  chiefly  in  mind  in  writing  not  Jewish, 
but  Gentile,  Christians.  This  does  not  mean  that  he 
was  hostile  to  his  Jewish  brethren,  or  that  he  had  any 
polemic  purpose  in  writing  his  work.  It  simply  means 
that  he  was  a  member  of  the  world-church,  and  that  dis- 
tinctions of  race  and  lineage  meant  nothing  to  him.  His 
horizon  was  thus  much  broader  than  that  of  the  author  of 
the  Logia,  and  his  situation  and  surroundings  were  very 
different  from  his.  The  Gospel  was  written  evidently 
after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  for  the  coming  of 
Christ  is  distinctly  separated  from  that  event  as  it  is  not 
in  the  Logia,2  but  apparently  not  long  after,  for  it  would 
seem  that  the  consummation  was  thought  of  as  follow- 
ing closely  upon  the  great  catastrophe.3  The  place  of 
composition  cannot  be  determined,  but  it  may  well  have 
been  Rome ;  for  Mark  was  there  at  least  in  the  late  fifties, 

i  Cf.  Mark  v.  41,  xv.  22.  2  Cf.  Mark  xiii.  10.  «  Mark  xiii.  24. 


574  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

and  Peter  came  thither  soon  afterward.1  The  language  of 
the  Gospel,  moreover,  contains  many  Latinisms,  and  there 
are  some  apparent  indications  that  the  author  was  writing 
with  a  Roman  public  particularly  in  view.2 

The  Logia  of  Matthew  and  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  the  one 
containing  Christ's  words,  the  other  an  account  of  his  min- 
istry, and  the  one  originating  in  Judea,  the  other  probably 
in  Rome,  were  subsequently  employed  in  the  composition 
of  our  first  and  third  Gospels.  They  constituted,  in  fact, 
the  principal  sources  of  those  Gospels,  more  than  three- 
fourths  of  Luke  and  more  than  seven-eighths  of  Matthew 
being  taken  from  one  or  the  other  of  them.  The  primary 
purpose  of  the  author  of  our  first  Gospel,  the  Gospel  of 
Matthew,  was  to  establish  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus.  While 
therefore  he  followed  Mark  more  or  less  closely  in  his 
general  outline  of  Jesus'  public  ministry,  he  was  concerned 
to  do  more  than  merely  give  a  vivid  and  trustworthy  ac- 
count of  that  ministry,  as  Mark  attempted  to  do.  He 
was  concerned  to  prove  that  from  his  birth  to  his  ascen- 
sion Jesus  fulfilled  all  the  requirements  of  Messiahship. 
His  lineage,  his  birthplace,  the  circumstances  attending 
both  his  birth  and  his  death,  and  the  events  of  his  life 
are  shown  by  Matthew  to  be  in  complete  accord  with  the 
Messianic  predictions  of  the  Old  Testament  prophets,  and 
thus  to  guarantee  his  Messiahship.  The  Gospel  conse- 
quently bears  a  very  different  character  from  the  Gospel 
of  Mark ;  it  is  an  argument,  not  merely  a  picture.  The 
author  is  not  content  simply  to  depict  Jesus  as  he  was  and 
to  let  him  influence  the  reader  by  the  power  of  his  person- 
ality, as  during  his  life  he  had  influenced  those  who  saw 
and  heard  him ;  but  he  tells  his  readers  that  Jesus  bore  a 
certain  character  and  occupied  a  certain  position,  and  then 
he  writes  his  Gospel  to  prove  it.3  The  difference  in  pur- 
pose between  the  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Mark  makes 
itself  clearly  seen  in  their  difference  of  structure.  While 
Mark  follows  the  chronological  method,  relating  the  events 

1  See  below,  p.  591.    Mark  was  also  there  twenty  years  or  more  later,  when 
First  Peter  was  written.     See  1  Pet.  v.  13. 

2  Cf.  Mark  xii.  13  sq.,  xv.  16. 

8  Compare  his  words  in  the  very  first  chapter  of  his  Gospel,  vss.  1, 16, 17, 22. 


THE  DEVELOPING   CHURCH  575 

of  Christ's  ministry  one  after  another  in  a  simple  and  natu- 
ral way,  Matthew  adopts  the  topical  arrangement  and  groups 
much  of  his  material  under  distinct  heads,  not  wholly,  to  be 
sure,  but  largely,  without  regard  to  chronological  sequence. 
The  result  is  an  artistic,  well-sustained,  and  impressive 
argument  for  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus ;  but  if  one  would 
see  Jesus  himself  as  he  actually  was  in  his  daily  life,  and 
in  his  relations  with  his  fellows,  one  must  forget  the  frame- 
work, and  detach  the  materials,  which  Matthew  repro- 
duces with  great  richness  and  fulness,  from  the  setting 
in  which  he  has  placed  them.1  The  work  was  written  by 
a  Christian  Jew,  and  apparently  a  Jew  of  Palestine ;  for 
the  author  employs  the  Hebrew  text  of  the  Old  Testament 
in  his  citations,  whenever  he  is  not  following  another  source. 
He  seems  also  to  have  had  his  Jewish  brethren  especially  in 
mind  in  writing,  though  he  evidently  did  not  write  for  them 
alone ;  for,  like  Mark  (though  not  so  frequently  as  he),  he 
translates  Aramaic  phrases  into  Greek.  But  though  thus 
a  Jew,  and  writing  apparently  primarily  for  Jews,  he  was 
not  a  particularist  in  any  sense.  He  believed  that  the 
Gospel  was  for  all  the  world,  for  Gentiles  as  well  as  for 
Jews,  and  he  was  entirely  free  from  all  bondage  either  to 
the  Jewish  law  or  to  the  prejudices  of  his  countrymen. 
His  Gospel  contains  utterances  as  distinctly  universal  in 
their  character  as  anything  in  Mark  or  Luke.2  He  was 
not  a  member  of  a  Jewish-Christian  party,  or  of  any  other 
party.  He  was  a  member  of  the  church  at  large,  and  the 
Pauline  and  Judaistic  controversy  was  a  dead  issue  to 
him.  Though  himself  more  Jewish  than  Mark  and  Luke, 
he  stood  equally  with  them  upon  the  platform  of  the 
developing  world-church. 

The  author  of  our  Gospel  and  the  place  of  composition, 
we  have  no  means  of  determining.  The  tradition  which 
connects  it  with  the  name  of  Matthew  is  of  no  weight,  for 

1  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  is  an  example  of  this.    We  form  an  erroneous 
impression  of  Jesus  if  we  picture  him  as  delivering  such  a  set  discourse  as  is 
recorded  in  Matt,  v.-vii.,  instead  of  thinking  of  him  as  dropping  his  golden 
words  here  and  there  in  familiar  conversation  with  those  with  whom  he 
mingled  day  by  day. 

2  Cf .  Matt,  xxviii.  19. 


576  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

it  rests  ultimately  upon  the  testimony  of  Papias  alone ;  but 
the  words  of  Papias  refer  not  to  the  Gospel  of  Matthew, 
but  to  the  Logia  which  lie  back  of  it.  There  is  no  hint  in 
the  work  itself  that  it  was  produced  by  a  personal  disciple 
of  Jesus,  who  was  an  eyewitness  of  the  events  recorded.  It 
can  hardly  be  supposed  that  such  a  man,  in  writing  a  Gos- 
pel, would  draw  seven-eighths  of  it  from  written  sources, 
one  of  which  was  the  work  of  a  man  who  had  not  himself 
seen  Christ.  Our  first  Gospel,  in  fact,  is  evidently  from 
the  pen  of  a  Christian  of  the  second  or  third  generation, 
and  the  apostolic  name  which  has  attached  to  it  in  tradition 
is  due  simply  to  the  fact  that  it  was  supposed  at  an  early 
day  to  be  a  translation  of  the  Logia  of  Matthew,  doubtless 
because  it  incorporated  the  greater  part  of  that  work  and 
superseded  it  in  the  use  of  the  church. 

The  Gospel  of  Luke,  like  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  was 
based  primarily  upon  the  Gospel  of  Mark  and  the  Logia, 
but  other  sources  were  apparently  employed  to  a  larger 
extent  than  by  Matthew.  The  collection  of  Christ's 
words  from  which  the  author  drew  many  of  his  parables 
has  already  been  referred  to,  and  he  evidently  used  also  a 
written  source  containing  an  account  of  Jesus'  birth  and 
childhood.  His  purpose  in  writing  his  Gospel  was  more 
historical  than  Matthew's.  Having  traced  the  course  of 
all  things  accurately  from  the  beginning,  he  aimed  to  write 
an  account  not  merely  of  Jesus'  public  ministry,  but  of  his 
life;  an  account,  moreover,  in  which  the  chronological 
order  should  be  preserved  throughout,  so  that  Theophilus 
might  have  an  accurate  knowledge  of  the  matters  in  which 
he  had  been  instructed.  He  refers  to  the  fact  that  many 
others,  not  themselves  personal  disciples  of  Jesus,  had 
undertaken  to  write  of  the  Master's  work;  but  he  claims 
for  his  own  Gospel  superiority  to  theirs  on  the  ground  of 
its  comprehensiveness  and  completeness  and  of  its  im- 
proved chronology.1  It  is  in  accordance  with  this  histori- 
cal purpose  that  he  endeavors  to  reproduce  the  contents  of 
the  Logia  in  as  nearly  as  may  be  their  original  historical 
setting,  instead  of  grouping  the  words  of  Christ  together, 
1  See  the  prologue  of  the  Gospel. 


THE   DEVELOPING   CHURCH  577 

as  Matthew  does,  without  regard  to  the  time  or  the  cir- 
cumstances in  which  they  were  uttered. 

The  author  was  apparently  a  Gentile  Christian.  He 
knew  little  about  Jewish  manners  and  customs,  and  wrote 
as  a  foreigner  unacquainted  with  the  scenes  in  which  the 
history  was  enacted.  More  than  that,  he  had  very  little  con- 
cern with  the  relations  between  Christianity  and  Judaism, 
and  the  strictures  of  Jesus  upon  the  laws  and  customs  of 
the  Jews  did  not  interest  him  as  they  did  Matthew.  Chris- 
tianity was  to  him  primarily  a  religion  for  the  world,  and 
he  was  interested  only  in  its  relation  to  the  world.  He 
recognizes  Jesus'  Messiahship  and  his  Davidic  lineage,  and 
he  calls  attention  occasionally  to  the  fulfilment  of  Old 
Testament  prophecy,  but  all  this  receives  surprisingly 
little  attention  from  him ;  evidently  his  sympathies  lay 
chiefly  along  other  lines. 

The  Gospel  of  Luke  was  written  after  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem;  for  the  author  made  use  of  the  Gospel  of 
Mark,  and  in  the  eschatological  passages  the  Jewish  war 
and  the  fall  of  the  city  are  more  clearly  referred  to  than  in 
either  Matthew  or  Mark.1  On  the  other  hand,  the  Gospel 
was  known  to  the  writer  of  the  fourth  Gospel ;  and  though 
in  its  introductory  section,  and  in  its  account  of  the  resur- 
rection, it  represents  a  considerably  later  stage  of  develop- 
ment than  Mark,  it  represents,  at  least  in  the  account  of 
the  resurrection,  an  earlier  stage  than  Matthew,  and  be- 
longs in  all  probability  to  an  earlier  date.  It  is  therefore 
safe  to  conclude  that  it  was  written  before  the  close  of  the 
first  century,  very  likely  a  decade  or  two  before. 

Who  the  author  was,  and  where  he  wrote,  we  have  no 
means  of  determining.  That  he  was  not  himself  an  eye- 
witness of  the  events  he  records  is  distinctly  stated  in  his 
prologue,  and  it  is  worthy  of  note  that  he  does  not  lay 
claim  to  have  gained  his  information  from  the  apostles,  or 
from  any  one  of  them ;  that  he  does  not  claim,  indeed,  to 
have  stood  in  such  a  relation  to  any  of  the  leading  Chris- 
tians of  the  first  generation  as  to  be  possessed  of  indepen- 
dent and  first-hand  knowledge  of  Christ's  life,  and  thus 

i  Cf .  Luke  xxi.  20,  24, 


578  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

peculiarly  fitted  to  write  of  him.  He  implies  that  he  had 
gained  his  information  only  by  such  study  and  investiga- 
tion as  any  one  of  his  da}'  might  have  undertaken.  He 
believed  that  he  could  produce  a  fuller  and  more  accurate 
account  of  Christ's  life  and  work  than  had  yet  been 
written,  simply  because  he  had  devoted  careful  attention 
to  the  subject  and  had  used  faithfully  all  the  sources  he 
could  find,  including,  apparently,  some  not  known  or 
used  by  his  predecessors.  Tradition,  beginning  with  Ire- 
nseus  and  the  Muratorian  Fragment,  ascribes  the  Gospel 
to  Luke,  the  companion  and  friend  of  Paul ;  but  there  is 
no  hint  in  the  Gospel,  not  even  in  the  prologue,  that  the 
author  knew  Paul.  And  though,  to  be  sure,  the  argu- 
ment from  silence  cannot  be  pressed  in  this  case,  there 
are  very  strong  reasons  for  denying  that  a  companion 
of  Paul  wrote  the  Book  of  Acts,  which  is  certainly  the 
work  of  the  author  of  the  third  Gospel.1 

Though  the  Synoptic  Gospels  represent  other  principles 
than  those  that  controlled  the  early  disciples  of  Jerusalem, 
they  can  all  be  traced  back  ultimately,  as  has  been  seen, 
to  the  Mother  Church,  and  to  that  church  is  therefore 
due  an  everlasting  debt  of  gratitude.  Had  the  Gentile 
world  depended  upon  Paul  for  its  knowledge  of  Christ, 
there  would  have  been  handed  down  to  subsequent  gen- 
erations hardly  more  than  the  fact  of  the  Saviour's  death 
and  resurrection.  It  is  to  the  Gospels  whose  composition 
was  due  to  the  impulse  given  by  the  Christians  of  Jeru- 
salem, that  Christendom  owes  its  knowledge  of  the 
personality  and  character  of  the  Master.  Though  the 
Synoptic  Gospels  have  had  very  little  influence  upon 
theology,  and  though  the  beliefs  of  the  church  have  been 
drawn  very  largely  from  other  sources,  they  have  served 
to  keep  the  memory  of  Christ  alive,  and  have  thus  acted, 
not  simply  as  a  permanently  vitalizing  and  uplifting  power, 
but  also  as  a  salutary  check,  recalling  the  church  over  and 
over  again  to  the  historic  basis  of  its  faith,  and  preventing 
it  from  losing  itself  altogether  in  empty  speculation,  and 
from  deluding  the  world  with  hollow  ceremonial  and  with 

1  See  above,  p.  433. 


THE  DEVELOPING   CHURCH  579 

artificial  faith.  Paul's  writings,  great  as  they  are,  might 
be  dispensed  with,  but  the  picture  of  Jesus,  as  he  was  in 
his  divine  sonship  and  in  his  human  brotherhood,  —  a 
picture  preserved  in  our  Gospels  alone, — the  world  could 
not  do  without.  Our  thinking  may  be  controlled  largely 
by  the  thinking  of  Paul,  but  it  is  Jesus  of  Nazareth  that 
controls  our  lives. 

Before  closing  this  section  upon  James  and  the  church 
of  Jerusalem,  it  is  necessary  to  examine  two  works,  one  of 
which  bears  the  name  of  James,  and  has  been  ascribed 
since  the  third  century  to  the  brother  of  the  Lord;  the 
other  of  which  bears  the  name  of  "  Judas,  the  brother  of 
James,"  and  has  been  ascribed  since  the  latter  part  of  the 
second  century  to  Jude,  another  of  the  four  brethren  of 
Jesus  mentioned  in  the  Gospels. 

The  Epistle  of  James  is  addressed  to  the  "  twelve  tribes 
of  the  dispersion  "  ;  and  yet,  though  it  opens  with  a  greet- 
ing in  genuine  epistolary  form,  it  is  to  all  intents  and  pur- 
poses not  a  letter  at  all,  but  a  practical  tract  or  homily. 
There  is  neither  greeting  nor  benediction  at  the  close,  and 
there  is  no  hint  in  the  work  itself  that  the  author  was 
writing  to  those  at  a  distance.  It  bears,  in  fact,  less  of  an 
epistolary  character  than  any  other  New  Testament  epistle. 
It  looks  as  if  a  work  written  originally  as  a  homily,  and 
with  reference  to  the  needs  of  a  particular  community, 
was  later  sent  out  into  the  •  world  with  the  general 
superscription  which  it  now  carries.  But  in  either  case, 
whether  the  author  thought  primarily  of  the  church  at 
large,  or  of  the  narrower  circle  in  which  he  himself  lived, 
his  purpose  in  writing  was  eminently  practical.  He  had 
actual  conditions  in  mind,  and  he  was  concerned  not  to 
present  a  theory  of  ethics  and  religion  or  a  statement  of 
the  general  principles  which  should  govern  a  man's  living 
and  thinking,1  but  to  meet  definite  and  particular  needs : 
to  warn  against  certain  prevalent  faults,  to  admonish  to 
certain  neglected  duties,  to  encourage  those  who  had 

1  Jas.  i.  27  is  significant  in  this  connection.  In  that  passage  "  pure  religion 
and  undefiled  "  is  defined,  not  in  a  general  way  as  personal  holiness  and  love 
for  one's  neighbor,  but  in  concrete  form  as  visiting  the  fatherless  and  widows 
in  their  affliction  and  keeping  oneself  unspotted  from  the  world. 


580  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE 

special  reasons  for  being  disheartened  and  despondent, 
The  author  makes  no  attempt  to  follow  a  preconceived 
plan  or  to  develop  his  ideas  logically.  He  takes  up  one 
subject  after  another  in  such  order  as  they  happen  to 
suggest  themselves,  without  any  effort  to  bring  them 
into  connection  or  to  keep  them  rigidly  apart.  The 
work,  therefore,  does  not  constitute  an  orderly  and  well- 
arranged  treatise ;  it  is  rather  a  collection  of  detached 
observations,  warnings,  and  admonitions  on  a  variety  of 
practical  topics.  Some  of  the  observations  were  doubtless 
original  with  the  author,  but  many,  and  perhaps  most  of 
them,  came  from  other  sources.  Not  that  the  epistle  is  a 
mere  compilation.  On  the  contrary,  it  was  written  with  a 
free  hand.  But  the  writer's  mind  was  well  stocked  with 
the  teaching  of  others,  and  he  incorporated  whatever  seemed 
suited  to  the  matter  in  hand  without  regard  to  the  source 
from  which  it  came  and  without  attempting  to  reproduce 
it  in  its  original  form  or  to  employ  it  in  its  original  sense. 
Reminiscences  of  the  Old  Testament  and  of  later  Jewish 
literature  are  very  numerous,  but  there  are  almost  no  direct 
quotations.  The  literary  style  corresponds  to  the  structure 
of  the  epistle.  Though  the  author  writes  good  Greek,  and 
has  an  excellent  command  of  the  language,  there  are  few 
long  periods  and  few  connective  particles.  As  in  the  Book 
of  Proverbs  and  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  concise  obser- 
vations, aphorisms,  and  gnomic  utterances  abound.  The 
epistle,  in  fact,  is  a  fair  sample  of  the  so-called  wisdom 
literature  of  the  Jews. 

The  work  bears  the  name  of  "  James,  a  servant  of  God 
and  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  and  it  has  been  ascribed  by 
tradition,  since  the  time  of  Origen  who  first  mentions  it, 
to  James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord.  That  James  should 
have  addressed  an  epistle  to  "  the  twelve  tribes  of  the  dis- 
persion," that  is,  if  the  words  be  taken  literally,  to  his 
Jewish  Christian  brethren  of  the  world  at  large,  is  not  at 
all  surprising.  We  know  that  he  occupied  a  position  of 
great  prominence  in  the  apostolic  age,  and  that  he  was 
regarded  with  respect  and  deference  far  beyond  the  con- 
fines of  Palestine.  And  yet  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that 


THE   DEVELOPING   CHURCH  581 

he  was  the  author  of  our  epistle.  James  was  a  zealous 
devotee  of  the  Jewish  ceremonial  law;  but  the  work 
contains  no  reference  whatever  to  that  law,  and  no  hint 
that  either  the  author  himself  or  his  readers  observed  it 
in  any  of  its  parts.  If  it  be  assumed  that  he  simply  took 
its  observance  for  granted  as  a  matter  of  course,  and 
thought  it  unnecessary  to  say  anything  about  it,  it  is  evi- 
dent that  the  epistle  must  have  been  written  before  the 
outbreak  of  the  Pauline  controversy,  when  the  question  of 
the  Christian's  relation  to  the  Jewish  law  became  a  burn- 
ing one.  But  against  so  early  a  date  may  be  urged,  in  the 
first  place,  the  extreme  worldliness  of  those  addressed,1 
which  points  to  a  loss  of  their  primitive  devotion  and 
enthusiasm,  and  seems  to  necessitate  the  lapse  of  a  con- 
siderable time  since  their  conversion ;  and  in  the  second 
place,  the  passage  on  faith  and  works,2  which  apparently 
presupposes  the  teaching  of  Paul  and  the  widespread 
abuse  of  that  teaching.  But  against  the  assumption  that 
James,  the  brother  of  Jesus,  wrote  the  epistle  either  at  an 
earlier  or  at  a  later  time,  may  be  urged  its  remarkable  and 
striking  silence  touching  Jesus  himself.  Except  in  the 
salutation  and  in  ii.  1,  where  "  Jesus  Christ,  the  Lord  of 
glory,"  is  referred  to  in  passing,  there  is  absolutely  no 
mention  of  Christ  in  the  epistle ;  no  allusion  to  his  birth, 
his  death,  his  resurrection,  or  to  salvation  through  him; 
no  hint  of  his  Messiahship ;  no  hint,  indeed,  that  the  Mes- 
siah is  already  come.  The  character  of  the  work  is  en- 
tirely different  in  these  respects  riot  only  from  the  Pauline 
and  post-Pauline  writings  in  the  New  Testament,  but  also 
from  the  speeches  in  the  early  chapters  of  the  Book  of 
Acts,  in  which  the  resurrection  and  Messiahship  of  Jesus 
are  made  so  much  of. 

The  ethical  tone  and  standard  of  the  work  are  noble 
and  inspiring  and,  in  many  respects,  closely  allied  to  the 
teaching  of  Jesus,  but  it  is  not  easy  to  understand,  and  it 
is  not  altogether  agreeable  to  contemplate  the  fact  that 
a  man  who  knew  Jesus  intimately  should  show  no  trace 
of  the  influence  of  the  Master's  wonderful  personality; 

l  Cf .  Jas.  iv.  2  Jas.  ii.  14  sq. 


582  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

should,  in  fact,  ignore  him  entirely  and  address  to  fellow- 
Christians  an  extended  homily  or  epistle  in  which  their 
life  and  duties  are  discussed  at  considerable  length  and 
from  various  points  of  view,  without  bringing  Jesus  into 
any  connection  with  that  life  or  those  duties.  It  is  true 
that  there  is  much  in  the  epistle  that  resembles  utter- 
ances of  Christ  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  and  it  is 
frequently  said  in  consequence  that  it  represents  the  true 
primitive  type  of  Christianity.  But  it  is  one  thing  for 
Jesus  to  say  little  about  himself;  it  is  quite  another  thing 
for  a  disciple  to  say  little  or  nothing  about  him.  And 
so  far  as  the  primitive  character  of  the  Christianity  of 
the  epistle  is  concerned,  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  the  idea 
of  God's  fatherhood  hardly  appears  in  the  work,1  and 
that  the  "  kingdom  "  upon  which  Jesus  laid  so  constant 
stress  is  only  once  referred  to,2  though  there  are  a  number 
of  cases  in  which  we  should  expect  the  term  to  be  em- 
ployed by  one  who  had  felt  his  influence.3  It  is  clear  that 
with  its  total  lack  of  all  reference  to  Jesus  as  the  Messiah, 
and  with  its  almost  total  lack  of  the  two  controlling  con- 
ceptions of  his  teaching,  "the  fatherhood  of  God"  and 
the  "  kingdom  of  God,"  the  epistle  can  hardly  be  regarded 
as  fairly  representative  of  Christianity  in  its  earliest  days, 
whether  the  Christianity  of  Jesus  himself  or  of  his  imme- 
diate followers.  In  the  light  of  all  that  has  been  said,  it 
seems  most  improbable  that  the  epistle  with  which  we  are 
dealing  was  written  by  James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord, 
who  knew  Jesus  so  well,  and  who  was  so  intimately  asso- 
ciated with  his  disciples  in  Jerusalem  during  the  early 
years  of  the  church  there.  Only  on  the  assumption  that 
the  work  was  written  by  some  one  who  had  not  known 
Jesus  personally,  and  who  lived  in  circles  where  the  mem- 
ory of  him  was  not  vivid,  can  its  remarkable  lack  of  the 
specifically  and  explicitly  Christian  element  be  explained.4 

1  See  above,  p.  447. 

2  Jas.  ii.  5,  where  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  the  kingdom  promised  by  God  to 
those  that  love  him  is  brought  into  no  connection  with  Jesus. 

»  Cf.,  e.g.,  Jas.  i.  12,  ii.  14  sq.,  v.  7  sq. 

4  The  only  other  primitive  Christian  work  which  can  be  compared  with  the 
Epistle  of  James  in  this  respect  is  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas,  which  was  written 


THE   DEVELOPING   CHUKCH  583 

Where  and  by  whom  the  work  was  written,  we  do  not 
know.  The  author  was  evidently  of  Jewish  birth  and 
training,1  but  it  is  clear  that  he  was  not  a  Jewish  particu- 
larist,  and  it  is  therefore  altogether  likely  that  he  was  a 
member  not  of  the  Mother  Church  or  of  any  of  the  Ebionitic 
communities  of  Palestine,  but  of  the  church  at  large ;  and 
this  conclusion  is  confirmed  by  the  excellent  Greek  in 
which  the  epistle  is  written,  and  by  the  fact  that  the  text 
of  the  Septuagint  is  used  throughout.  But  if  the  epistle 
was  written  by  a  Hellenistic  Jew  who  was  a  member  of 
the  world-church,  it  can  hardly  have  been  addressed  ex- 
clusively to  Jewish  Christians;  for  in  that  church  the 
wall  between  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christians  was  com- 
pletely broken  down  long  before  he  wrote,  and  the  Gentile 
disciples  were  recognized  as  sharing  with  their  Jewish 
brethren  in  the  heritage  of  the  elect  people  of  God.  There 
were  outside  of  Ebionitic  circles  no  exclusively  Jewish 
or  Gentile  churches ;  there  were  only  Christian  churches 

by  a  Roman  Christian  of  the  second  century.  It  is  worthy  of  notice  also  that 
the  general  conception  of  Christianity  which  appears  in  the  two  works  is  very 
similar,  and  the  conditions  to  which  their  authors  address  themselves  much 
the  same. 

1  The  recent  investigations  of  Professor  Spitta  (Der  Brief  des  Jakobus  in 
his  Zur  Geschichte  und  LUteratur  des  Urchristenthums,  Bd.  II.)  have  made 
it  abundantly  clear  that  the  author  was  a  Jew  by  birth.  It  is  not  simply  that 
he  was  acquainted  with  the  Jewish  Bible ;  for  it  was  a  sacred  book  to  Gentile 
as  well  as  Jewish  Christians,  and  was  studied  as  diligently  by  the  former  as 
by  the  latter.  But  his  intimate  familiarity  with  contemporary  Jewish  litera- 
ture, and  his  genuinely  Jewish  spirit  and  mode  of  thought,  can  be  explained 
only  on  the  assumption  that  he  was  a  Jew  born  and  bred.  But  Spitta's  theory 
that  the  author  was  an  unconverted  Jew,  though  the  surprising  lack  of  the 
specifically  Christian  element  and  of  all  reference  to  the  life  and  work  of 
Christ  is  a  strong  argument  in  its  favor,  is  beset  with  two  fatal  objections. 
In  the  first  place,  the  resemblances  to  Christ's  words  recorded  in  the  Synoptic 
Gospels  are  too  numerous  to  be  explained,  except  on  the  assumption  that  the 
author  was  acquainted  with  many  of  his  utterances.  In  the  second  place,  it 
is  difficult  to  comprehend  how  a  Christian,  in  transforming  a  Jewish  into  a 
Christian  work,  could  content  himself  with  the  addition  of  only  two  phrases 
(/ecu  Kvpiov  'Ifja-ov  Xpicrrov  in  i.  1,  and  ij^Cov  'iTjtrou  XpierToO  in  ii.  1).  He  must 
have  felt  the  need  of  giving  a  work  borrowed  from  an  unchristian  source  a 
more  specifically  Christian  character  by  the  insertion  of  at  least  some  refer- 
ences to  the  life  of  Christ,  an  appeal  to  whose  example  would  have  added  so 
much  to  the  force  of  the  epistle ;  or,  if  not  to  his  life,  at  least  to  his  death  and 
resurrection.  It  is  conceivable  that  a  Christian,  writing  to  fellow-disciples 
with  a  purely  practical  purpose,  might  omit  such  references  as  unnecessary ; 
but  something  of  the  sort  must  have  seemed  essential  to  one  who  was  con- 
cerned to  give  a  Christian  character  to  a  Jewish  work. 


584  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

in  which  Jews  and  Gentiles  stood  on  one  plane.  It  would 
seem,  then,  that  the  greeting  to  the  "  twelve  tribes  of  the 
dispersion,"  whether  constituting  originally  a  part  of  the 
epistle  or  attached  to  it  by  a  later  hand,  must  be  taken 
figuratively,  as  in  First  Peter,  to  apply  to  Christians  in 
general  without  regard  to  race. 

The  exact  date  of  the  epistle,  assuming  it  to  have  been 
written  under  the  circumstances  described,  cannot  be  de- 
termined. The  general  conception  of  Christianity  which 
appears  in  it  is  practically  identical,  as  has  been  already  in- 
dicated, with  the  conception  of  First  and  Second  Clement 
and  Hermas,  and  points  to  conditions  much  the  same  as 
when  those  works  were  written.  But  the  frank  way  in 
which  the  author  asserts  that  a  man  cannot  be  justified  by 
faith  alone,  and  his  entire  lack  of  concern  with  the  fact 
that  his  words  might  be  construed  as  out  of  accord  with 
the  teaching  of  Paul  upon  the  subject,  seem  to  point  to 
the  earlier  rather  than  the  later  post-Pauline  period,  to  a 
time,  that  is,  when  Paul's  epistles  were  not  widely  read, 
and  when  his  authority,  as  one  of  the  apostles  of  Christ, 
was  not  everywhere  recognized  in  the  church  at  large  as 
it  was  after  the  beginning  of  the  second  century.  I 
should  be  inclined,  in  fact,  to  suppose  the  epistle  written 
before  the  end  of  the  first  century  by  a  Jewish  Christian, 
who  was  not  in  any  way  connected  with  Paul,  and  who 
was  neither  hostile  to  him,  nor  his  follower ;  a  man  to 
whom  Paul  meant  no  more  than  any  other  travelling 
apostle  or  evangelist,  and  who,  finding  misconceptions  in 
regard  to  faith  prevalent,  attacked  them  without  any  par- 
ticular thought  of  him,  and  without  any  intention  of  un- 
dermining his  credit  and  influence. 

But  if  it  be  concluded  that  the  epistle  was  written  not  by 
James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  but  by  some  Hellenistic  Jew 
in  the  latter  part  of  the  first  century,  what  is  to  be  said  of 
the  tradition  which  ascribes  it  to  James  ?  That  tradition  is 
very  late,  and  no  weight  whatever  need  be  attached  to  it.1 

1  It  bpgins  with  Origen  in  the  third  century,  and  it  was  long  in  finding  uni- 
versal acceptance.  The  epistle  is  put  by  Eusebius  among  the  autilegomena 
or  disputed  books  (//.  E.  III.  25) . 


THE  DEVELOPING  CHURCH  585 

It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  no  trace  of  the  epistle  is  found 
in  Jewish  Christian  or  Ebionitic  circles  where  the  name 
of  James  was  held  in  the  highest  honor,  and  that  even 
Hegesippus,  a  Jewish  Christian  of  the  second  century, 
who  was  very  diligent  in  collecting  information  about 
James  himself  and  about  the  early  church  of  Jerusalem, 
knows  nothing  of  such  a  work.1  And  yet  there  is  no 
warrant  for  regarding  the  work  as  pseudonymous.  It 
makes  no  claim  to  have  been  written  by  James,  the  brother 
of  the  Lord,  and  it  is  conceivable  either  that  it  was 
actually  written  by  some  James  otherwise  unknown  to  us, 
or  that  the  superscription  was  added  by  a  later  scholar  or 
scribe.  The  only  objection  to  the  former  alternative  is 
the  address  of  the  epistle,  which  must  be  original  if  the 
preceding  words  are ;  for  those  words  cannot  have  stood 
alone.  That  address  implies  some  well-known  James,  and 
at  least  suggests  the  brother  of  the  Lord.  On  the  other 
hand,  against  the  latter  alternative,  may  be  urged  the  ex- 
ceedingly modest  phrase  by  which  the  author  is  designated. 
It  is  difficult  to  suppose  that  a  later  writer,  in  attributing 
the  epistle  to  the  great  James,  would  speak  of  him  in 
such  a  way.  It  is  possible  that  the  address  "To  the 
twelve  tribes  of  the  dispersion  "  is  alone  original,  and  that 
the  phrase  "  James,  a  servant  of  God  and  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,"  was  added  to  the  anonymous  epistle  under 
the  influence  of  the  parallel  words  in  the  Epistle  of  Jude, 
which  seems  to  have  been  ascribed  to  Judas,  the  brother 
of  James,  before  our  epistle  was  ascribed  to  James  himself.2 
The  epistle  which  bears  the  name  of  Judas,  "  brother  of 
James,"  is  of  a  very  different  character  from  the  Epistle  of 
James.  Though  it  is  addressed  to  no  specific  church,  it  is 
yet  a  genuine  letter,  as  appears  not  only  from  the  saluta- 
tion at  the  beginning  and  the  benediction  at  the  close,  but 
also  from  vs.  3,  where  the  author  speaks  of  writing  to 

1  Nothing  is  said  of  James'  epistle  in  the  extant  fragments  of  Hegesippus' 
writings,  and  Eusebius,  who  was  so  careful  to  record  all  the  early  testimonies 
to  the  antilegomena  which  he  could  find,  would  not  have  failed  to  mention  the 
fact  if  he  had  discovered  any  reference  to  the  epistle  in  Hegesippus'  memoirs. 

2  The  Epistle  of  Jude  is  ascribed  to  Judas,  the  brother  of  Jesus,  by  the 
author  of  the  Muratorian  Fragment,  by  Tertullian  and  Clement  of  Alexandria. 


586  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

those  whom  he  addresses.  But  the  contrast  between  the 
two  works  is  not  merely  one  of  form.  The  aim  of  the 
Epistle  of  Jude  is  entirely  different  from  that  of  James' 
epistle,  and  its  contents  equally  so.  The  purpose  which 
the  author  of  the  former  had  in  view  in  writing  was  to 
denounce  certain  false  teachers  and  their  teachings,  and  to 
warn  Christian  believers  against  them.  The  entire  work 
is  devoted  to  the  one  subject.  It  is  clear  that  the  persons 
attacked  were  Gnostic  in  their  tendency,1  if  they  did  not 
constitute,  as  they  very  likely  did,  a  regular  Gnostic  sect. 
They  apparently  denied  the  supreme  God  to  be  the  ruler 
of  the  world,2  as  all  the  Gnostics  did,  and  they  seem  to 
have  been  Docetic  in  their  conception  of  the  person  of 
Christ.3  It  is  possible  also  that  in  genuine  Gnostic  fashion 
they  separated  themselves,  as  alone  truly  spiritual,  from 
the  mass  of  Christians  in  general.4  Finally,  they  were 
thoroughgoing  libertines,  and  apparently  libertines  on 
principle.5  It  is  especially  their  libertinism  which  draws 
upon  them  the  condemnation  of  our  author.  Nearly  the 
whole  of  his  epistle  is  devoted  to  a  denunciation  of  their 
lascivious  practices,  and  he  is  not  sparing  in  his  use  of 
language.  He  does  not  undertake  to  enter  into  a  dis- 
cussion with  those  whom  he  attacks  and  to  prove  their 
principles  fallacious.  He  is  satisfied  to  denounce  their 
practices  and  to  remind  his  readers  that  the  judgment  of 
God  will  surely  overtake  such  despisers  of  his  will  as  it 
always  has  in  the  past.  It  is  interesting  to  notice,  how- 
ever, that  the  writer  does  not  charge  his  readers  simply  to 
avoid  such  persons,  but  urges  them  to  do  what  they  can 
to  reclaim  them.6  In  this  respect  he  differs  very  strikingly 
from  Polycarp  and  the  author  of  Second  John. 

1  Cf.  Jude  10,  13,  16;  and  see  Pfleiderer:  Urchristenthum,  S.  835  sq. 

2  Compare  the  words  rbv  pAvov  AWT^T^  .  .  .  &pvov/j.eot  in  vs.  4. 

8  As  is  suggested  by  the  words  ntpiov  rjfj.uv  'lyaovv  X/>urrd»>  dpvovfju-voi  in 
the  same  verse. 

4  Cf .  vs.  19. 

6  Cf .  vss.  4,  8, 13, 16.  They  were  thus  closely  related  in  some  respects  to  the 
false  teachers  attacked  in  the  Epistle  of  John,  but  they  bore  a  still  more  dis- 
tinctly Gnostic  character,  and  represented  apparently  a  somewhat  later  stage 
of  development. 

«  Cf .  vss.  22  and  23. 


THE   DEVELOPING   CHURCH  587 

The  author  and  the  time  and  place  of  composition  are 
uncertain.  He  seems  to  have  been  familiar  with  at  least 
some  of  Paul's  epistles,  and  he  makes  use  of  two  late 
apocryphal  works,  the  Assumptio  Mosis  and  the  Book  of 
Enoch,  taking  the  incident  which  he  relates  in  vs.  9,  con- 
cerning the  archangel  Michael's  contention  with  the  devil, 
from  the  former  work,  and  vss.  6  and  14  sq.  from  the  lat- 
ter. It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  the  words  in  vs.  14  sq.  are 
expressly  ascribed  by  him  to  the  patriarch  Enoch.  He 
speaks  of  the  apostles  as  if  they  had  lived  long  before,1  and 
he  uses  the  word  "  faith  "  in  the  same  objective  way  in  which 
it  is  used  in  the  pastorals,  to  denote  the  deposit  handed 
down  from  earlier  days  and  which  it  is  necessary  for  all 
true  Christians  to  accept  and  preserve ;  and  he  even  goes 
so  far  as  to  speak  of  such  faith  as  delivered  once  for  all, 
implying  apparently  that  no  farther  revelation  is  possible.2 
These  facts,  taken  in  connection  with  the  distinct  anti- 
Gnostic  purpose  of  the  author,  point  to  the  second  century 
or  to  the  closing  years  of  the  first  as  the  time  when  he 
wrote.  On  the  other  hand,  it  will  hardly  do  to  assign  a 
date  later  than  the  first  quarter  of  the  second  century ;  for 
those  whom  the  writer  denounces  are  still  within  the  church 
and  meet  with  their  fellow-Christians  in  their  love  feasts.3 
External  testimony  does  not  help  us  in  the  matter ;  for  the 
first  reference  to  the  epistle  is  in  the  Muratorian  Frag- 
ment, which  belongs  to  the  closing  decades  of  the  second 
century. 

So  far  as  the  personality  of  the  author  is  concerned,  he 
designates  himself  as  "  Judas,  a  servant  of  Jesus  Christ  and 
brother  of  James."  The  epistle  accordingly  passes  in  tra- 
dition as  the  work  of  the  Judas  who  is  mentioned  in  the 
Gospels  as  one  of  the  brethren  of  Jesus,  the  James  referred 
to  being  naturally  regarded  as  the  well-known  brother  of 
the  Lord.  It  may  safely  be  assumed,  however,  for  the 
reasons  already  given,  that  the  letter  was  not  written  by 
a  Christian  of  the  first  generation.  The  age  of  Christ  and 
his  apostles  had  long  passed,  and  the  author  nowhere 
hints  that  he  himself  was  a  survivor  of  that  earlier 

i  Jude  17.    Cf.  also  vs.  4.  2  Cf .  vss.  3  and  20.  3  Cf .  vs.  12. 


588  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

age.1  But  it  is  not  necessary  to  assume  that  the  epistle 
is  a  pseudonymous  work.  It  may  have  been  written  by  a 
Christian  named  Jude,  who  is  otherwise  entirely  unknown 
to  us.  It  is,  at  any  rate,  difficult  to  understand  why  an 
author  who  wished  to  give  his  epistle  apostolic  authority 
should  have  selected  the  name  of  Jude,  and  why,  having 
chosen  that  name,  he  should  have  called  himself  simply  the 
brother  of  James,  instead  of  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  which 
would  have  enhanced  greatly  the  dignity  and  authority  of 
his  letter.  The  same  considerations  may  be  urged  against 
the  assumption  that  the  name  "  Jude  "  was  attached  to  the 
epistle  by  some  copyist  or  scribe.  But  if  the  author  act- 
ually bore  the  name,  and  designated  himself  in  the  salu- 
tation of  his  epistle,  "Judas,  a  servant  of  Jesus  Christ," 
it  would  be  the  most  natural  thing  in  the  world  for  some 
one  in  the  second  century,  supposing  him  to  be  the  brother 
of  the  great  James  referred  to  in  the  Gospels,  to  add  the 
words  aSe\0o9  8e  'Ia/cd>/3ot;,  thus  innocently  ascribing  the 
work  to  the  wrong  man. 

2.  PETER  AND  THE  CHURCH  OP  ROME 

Of  Peter's  career  during  the  period  when  Paul  was 
carrying  on  his  great  missionary  campaigns,  we  are  almost 
entirely  ignorant.  In  the  earliest  days  he  was  the  lead- 
ing figure  among  the  disciples  in  Jerusalem;  and  he 
seems  still  to  have  been  regarded  as  such  three  years  after 
Paul's  conversion,  for  the  latter  went  up  to  Jerusalem  at 
that  time  for  the  express  purpose  of  seeing  him.2  Whether 
his  visits  to  Lydda,  Joppa,  and  Csesarea,  described  in  the 
ninth  and  tenth  chapters  of  Acts,  took  place  before  or 
after  this,  we  do  not  know.  But  he  was  in  Jerusalem,  at 
any  rate,  some  eight  or  ten  years  later,  and  was  still  so 
prominent  a  figure  among  the  Christians  there  that  when 

1  The  brothers  of  Jesus  were  doubtless  all  of  them  dead  long  before  the 
Epistle  of  Jude  was  written.  It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  Hegesippus  says 
in  Eusebius  (//.  E.  III.  20) :  "  Of  the  family  of  the  Lord  there  were  still  living 
[that  is,  in  the  time  of  Domitian]  the  grandchildren  of  Jude,  who  is  said  to 
have  been  the  Lord's  brother  according  to  the  flesh."  The  statement  of 
course  implies  the  prior  death  of  all  Jesus'  immediate  family. 

a  Gal.  i.  18. 


THE   DEVELOPING   CHURCH  589 

Herod  wished  to  persecute  them,  he  singled  him  out,  along 
with  James,  the  son  of  Zebedee,  as  a  special  object  of 
attack,  beheading  James,  and  throwing  Peter  into  prison.1 
Immediately  after  his  miraculous  escape,  Peter  left  the 
city,2  and  we  hear  nothing  more  of  him  until  the  time  of 
the  council,  in  the  year  45  or  46.  It  would  hardly  have 
been  safe  for  him  to  return  to  Jerusalem  until  after 
Herod's  death,  and  it  is  therefore  probable  that  he  spent 
at  least  a  part  of  the  interval  away  from  the  city,  —  very 
likely  in  missionary  work.  At  the  council  his  influence 
seems  to  have  been  less  controlling  than  in  earlier  days, 
and  the  position  of  leadership,  which  he  had  originally  held 
by  common  consent,  was  apparently  occupied  by  James,  the 
brother  of  the  Lord.3  From  that  time  on,  if  not  already 
before  that  time,  James,  and  not  Peter,  was  the  prominent 
figure  in  the  Mother  Church.  The  pre-eminence  which  he 
enjoyed  may  have  been  largely  due  to  Peter's  repeated 
and  extended  absences  from  the  city  ;  but  he  was  naturally 
more  in  sympathy  with  the  spirit  of  the  strict  Jewish 
Christians  of  Jerusalem  than  Peter,  and  the  knowledge 
of  that  fact  doubtless  tended  to  undermine  somewhat  the 
credit  and  authority  of  the  latter.  James  seems  to  have 
remained  closely  at  home,  and  his  horizon  was  not  broad- 
ened by  any  such  experiences  as  came  to  Peter  in  his 
missionary  journeys  in  the  world  outside.  The  liberal 
tendency  of  the  latter,  evinced  by  his  action  in  connec- 
tion with  Cornelius,  by  his  speech  at  the  council,  and  by 
his  subsequent  conduct  at  Antioch,  was  not  in  harmony 
with  the  prevailing  tendency  in  Jerusalem ;  and  it  may 
fairly  be  doubted  whether  he  could  have  retained  the  com- 
plete confidence  of  all  his  brethren,  and  could  have  kept 
his  original  hold  upon  the  Mother  Church,  even  had  he 
made  his  permanent  residence  there.  But  however  that 

1  Acts  xii.    Herod  Agrippa  died  in  44  A. D.    How  long  before  his  death  the 
arrest  of  James  and  Peter  took  place,  we  do  not  know ;  for  there  is  no  neces- 
sary chronological  connection  between  Acts  xii.  20  and  the  preceding  context. 

2  Acts  xii.  17.    The  author  of  the  Acts  seems  to  have  known  no  more  than 
we  know  about  Peter's  whereabouts  between  this  time  and  the  Council  of 
Jerusalem. 

3  Not  simply  is  James  given  a  more  prominent  position  in  the  account  of 
the  conference  contained  in  Acts  xv. ;  he  is  mentioned  before  Peter  in  Gal.  ii.  9. 


590  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

may  be,  he  at  any  rate  left  the  leadership  of  the  church 
to  others,  and  spent  the  greater  part  of  his  life  in  mis- 
sionary labors  elsewhere.  Already,  at  the  time  of  the 
council,  he  was  known  as  the  great  apostle  of  the  circum- 
cision ; l  that  is,  'it  would  seem,  as  the  one  who  was  doing 
the  largest  missionary  work  among  the  Jews  in  foreign 
parts.  His  presence  in  Jerusalem  is  not  again  referred  to, 
and  it  is  clear,  at  least,  that  he  was  not  there  when  Paul 
visited  the  city  for  the  last  time  seven  or  eight  years  later.2 
Where  he  went  after  his  unfortunate  experience  in 
Antioch,  to  which  Paul  refers  in  Gal.  ii.  11  sq.,  we  do  not 
know.  A  few  years  later  he  was  travelling  about  as  an 
apostle,  in  company  with  his  wife,  as  we  learn  from  1  Cor. 
ix.  5 ;  but  no  hint  is  given  as  to  the  scene  of  his  labors. 
It  may  well  be  that  he  confined  himself  during  this  period 
very  largely,  if  not  exclusively,  to  the  province  of  Syria. 
It  is  significant  that,  although  Paul  labored  in  that  prov- 
ince for  a  number  of  years  after  his  conversion,  he  did 
nothing  there  in  the  latter  part  of  his  career,  and  that  he 
wrote  no  epistle,  so  far  as  we  know,  to  any  Syrian  church. 
His  complete  withdrawal  from  his  earlier  field  of  labor, 
and  his  apparent  lack  of  responsibility  for  its  welfare,  may 
have  been  due  to  the  fact  that  Peter  was  working  there, 
and  thus  making  Paul's  presence  and  interest  unneces- 
sary.3 Syria  was  very  thickly  populated  with  Jews,  and 
Peter,  who  was  regarded  by  Paul  and  regarded  himself 
as  the  apostle  of  the  circumcision,  would  find  there  a 
natural  and  an  ample  field.  But  whether  there  or  else- 
where, he  was  evidently  doing  a  large  work  and  vindicat- 
ing his  reputation  as  the  greatest  of  the  original  apostles. 
James'  credit  might  be  greater  in  the  church  of  Jerusalem, 
but  in  the  church  at  large  Peter's  missionary  activity  and 
his  broader  spirit,  which  brought  him  into  closer  sympathy 
with  Christians  outside  of  Palestine,  could  not  fail  to  give 
him  more  prominence  and  influence  than  James  possessed.4 

i  Gal.  ii.  8.  2  Acts  xxi.  18  sq. 

8  See  Weizsiicker,  I.e.  S.  4«6  (Bug.  Trans.,  Vol.  II.  p.  149). 

4  Cf.,  for  instance,  the  credit  and  authority  which  he  enjoyed  in  Corinth, 
where  one  of  the  three  parties  was  named  after  him  (1  Cor.  i.  12),  and  the 
special  emphasis  which  Paul  lays  upon  his  name  in  1  Cor.  ix.  5. 


THE  DEVELOPING   CHURCH  591 

But  though  Peter  very  likely  confined  himself  to  Syria 
during  much  of  the  time  when  Paul  was  carrying  on  his 
missionary  campaigns,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  he 
made  his  way  to  Rome  before  the  end  of  his  life  and 
labored  there  for  some  time.  Clement  of  Rome,  writing 
before  the  end  of  the  first  century,  though  he  does  not 
explicitly  state,  certainly  does  imply  that  Peter  had  been 
in  Rome  and  that  he  had  suffered  martyrdom  there.1  Igna- 
tius of  Antioch,  also,  in  writing  to  the  Romans  a  few 
years  later,  says,  "  I  do  not  enjoin  you  as  Peter  and  Paul 
did,"  2  which  has  no  meaning  unless  Peter  had  preached  to 
them  as  well  as  Paul.  Dionysius  of  Corinth,  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  Irenseus  of  Gaul,  and  Tertullian  of  North 
Africa,  all  writing  before  the  end  of  the  second  century, 
refer  to  Peter's  presence  in  Rome  as  a  well-known  fact,3 
and  it  is  mentioned  over  and  over  again  in  the  literature 
of  the  third  and  following  centuries.  But  though  in  the 
light  of  such  early  and  unanimous  testimony  it  may  be 
regarded  as  an  established  fact  that  Peter  visited  Rome,  it 
is  equally  certain  that  he  cannot  have  gone  thither  during 
Paul's  lifetime.  His  presence  there,  either  before  or  at  the 
time  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans  was  written,  is  incon- 
ceivable in  view  of  the  absolute  silence  of  that  epistle  and 
of  the  situation  which  it  presupposes.  It  is  equally  in- 
conceivable that  he  can  have  been  there  during  Paul's 
imprisonment  when  Philippians,  Ephesians,  Colossians, 
Philemon,  and  a  part  of  2  Timothy  were  written.  And 
yet  a  somewhat  prolonged  residence  and  activity  in  Rome 
seem  to  be  imperatively  demanded  by  the  traditions  of 
the  Roman  church,  and  by  the  universal  recognition  which 
was  later  given  to  the  claim  of  that  church  to  be  the  See 
of  Peter.  It  is  true  that  there  is  no  single  witness  to 
whom  we  can  appeal  with  any  degree  of  confidence,  and  it 
is  true,  moreover,  that  the  tradition  of  a  twenty-five  years' 
episcopate  is  worthless.4  But  the  honor  in  which  Peter's 

i  Ad  Cor.  5  and  6.  2  Ad  Rom.  4. 

3  Dionysius  of  Corinth  in  Eusebius :  H.  E.  II.  25 ;  Clement  in  Eusebius,  VI. 
14 ;  Irenaeus :  Adv.  Hssr.  III.  1,  1 ;  Tertullian :  De  Bapt.  4,  De  Prsescr.  Hser.  32, 
36  (cf.  also  Scorpiace,  15). 

4  That  tradition  is  found  first  in  Jerome :  De  vir.  ill.  1. 


692  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE 

memory  was  universally  held  by  the  Christians  of  Rome, 
and  the  way  in  which  his  figure  overshadowed  that  of 
Paul,  can  hardly  be  explained  on  merely  dogmatic  grounds. 
Nothing  less  than  his  leadership  and  personal  domination 
in  the  Roman  church  can  account  for  the  result. 

But  such  leadership  and  domination  could  hardly  be 
secured,  where  there  was  so  much  rivalry  and  division  as 
in  Rome  at  the  time  Paul  wrote  to  the  Philippians,  until 
Peter  had  labored  some  time  there  and  gained  the  confi- 
dence of  all  parties.  His  liberal  spirit  and  his  practical 
sense  made  it  possible  for  him  to  unify  and  consolidate 
opposing  factions  as  another  might  not  have  been  able  to 
do,  but  even  he  could  not  do  it  in  an  instant.  Under 
these  circumstances  it  is  difficult  to  believe,  as  is  widely 
taken  for  granted,  that  he  spent  only  a  few  weeks  or 
months  in  Rome,  coming  thither  just  before  the  Neronian 
persecution  and  perishing  in  that  deluge  of  blood.  It 
must  be  assumed  either  that  his  death  did  not  occur  until 
some  years  after  that  time,  or  that  he  came  to  Rome  some 
years  before  it.  The  former  alternative,  though  possible,  is 
far  from  probable.  That  Peter  suffered  martyrdom  is  too 
well  attested  to  admit  of  doubt,1  and  that  his  death  oc- 
curred under  Nero  was  the  common  belief  of  the  church, 
at  least  from  the  second  century  on.2  Moreover,  that  he 
suffered  in  the  great  Neronian  persecution,  or  at  any  rate 
not  later  than  that  time,  though  not  explicitly  stated  by 
Clement  of  Rome,  is  certainly  implied  in  the  sixth  chapter 
of  his  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  where  the  victims  of  that 
persecution  are  said  to  have  been  "  gathered  unto  "  Peter 
and  Paul;  and  the  tradition  that  he  was  crucified,3  and 
the  statement  of  Caius  of  Rome 4  that  he  was  buried  in 
the  Vatican,  which  was  the  scene  of  the  butchery,  both  go 
to  confirm  the  assumption  that  he  was  one  of  those  vic- 

1  Cf.,  for  instance,  John  xxi.  19;  Clement:  Ad  Cor.  5. 

2  Cf.  Dionysius  of  Corinth  in  Eusebius:  H.  E.  II.  25,  and  Tertullian :  Scorp. 
15.    Compare  also  the  Chronicles  of  Eusebius  and  Jerome,  which  put  Peter's 
death  in  67  and  68  respectively. 

3  See  Tertullian :  De  Prsescr.  Hser.  36 ;  also  Origen  (quoted  by  Eusebius : 
H.  E.  III.  1).    Some  scholars  find  a  reference  to  Peter's  crucifixion  in  John 
xxi.  18.    See,  for  instance,  Lightfoot:  St.  Clement  of  Home,  II.  p.  492. 

4  Quoted  by  Eusebius :  //.  E.  II.  25. 


THE   DEVELOPING   CHURCH  593 

tims.  It  is  not  easy,  therefore,  to  believe  that  he  lived 
until  a  later  time.1  But  if  the  death  of  Paul  be  put 
back  into  the  year  58,  there  is  no  difficulty  in  supposing 
that  Peter  came  to  Rome  some  five  or  six  years  before 
Nero's  attack  upon  the  Christians,  and  remained  there  the 
rest  of  his  life.  His  presence  and  his  labors  there  during 
that  time  would  then  help  to  account  for  the  fact  that  the 
Christians  were  well  enough  known  in  the  city  before 
the  great  conflagration  to  make  it  possible  for  Nero  to 
single  them  out  as  scapegoats  in  order  to  divert  from 
himself  the  suspicion  of  having  been  the  author  of  the 
fire ;  and  a  residence  of  half  a  dozen  years  is  amply  suffi- 
cient to  account  for  the  overmastering  influence  which  he 
acquired,  and  for  the  permanent  impression  which  he  left 
upon  the  Roman  church. 

Three  New  Testament  books  are  connected  by  tradition 
more  or  less  directly  with  Peter's  name,  —  the  First  and 
Second  Epistles  of  Peter  and  the  Gospel  of  Mark.  The 
occasion,  the  purpose,  and  the  contents  of  the  First  Epistle 
of  Peter  have  been  already  indicated;  and  it  has  been 
shown  that  its  author  was  a  genuine  Paulinist,  truer 
to  the  teaching  of  the  great  apostle  to  the  Gentiles 
than  any  other  writer  known  to  us.2  But  this  fact  sug- 
gests the  question  whether  the  epistle  can  have  been 
written  by  the  apostle  Peter,  whose  name  it  bears.  And 
the  question  is  rendered  still  more  pressing  by  the  fact 
that  the  Christians  addressed  in  it  were  Gentiles,3  and 
that  they  lived  in  that  part  of  the  world  which  had  been 
evangelized  by  Paul,  at  least  a  part  of  them  residing  within 

1  Ramsay  (Church  in  the  Roman  Empire,  p.  2(52  sq.)  assumes  that  Peter 
was  still  alive  as  late  as  the  year  80,  but  though  it  is  not  impossible  it  is  cer- 
tainly extremely  improbable  that  he  lived  until  so  late  a  date. 

2  See  above,  p.  485  sq. 

3  Cf.  1  Pet.  i.  14,  ii.  9  sq.,  iii.  6,  iv.  3.    The  fact  that  they  are  called  "the 
elect  who  are  sojourners  of  the  dispersion  "  in  i.  1  cannot  be  urged  as  proof 
that  they  were  Jewish  Christians ;  for  Paul,  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  Ctement,  and  Barnabas  all  looked  upon  the  Christians  as  children 
of  Abraham  and  heirs  of  God's  covenant  with  the  fathers ;  and  there  is,  there- 
fore, no  difficulty  in  supposing  these  words  to  have  been  used  in  a  figurative 
sense  of  the  people  of  God,  the  true  children  of  Abraham  (whose  fatherland 
is  heaven)  scattered  throughout  the  world,  and  surrounded  not  with  their 
own  brethren  but  with  unbelievers  aud  heathen  (compare  also  i.  17  and  ii.  11). 


594  THE   APOSTOLIC    AGE 

liis  own  missionary  territory,  —  the  provinces  of  Galatia 
arid  Asia.  It  is  surprising,  to  say  the  least,  that  the  man 
who  was  recognized  at  the  time  of  the  conference  at  Jeru- 
salem as  "the  apostle  of  the  circumcision,"  and  who 
believed  his  life-work  to  be  the  evangelization  of  the  Jews 
(as  is  clear  from  his  conduct  at  Antioch),  should  have 
written  an  epistle  to  Gentile  Christians,  to  those,  more- 
over, who  owed  their  conversion  to  Paul ;  and  it  is  still 
more  surprising  that  a  man  who  had  learned  his  Chris- 
tianity from  Jesus  himself,  who  had  been  most  intimately 
associated  with  him  throughout  his  entire  ministay,  and 
who,  both  before  and  after  Christ's  death,  was  the  leader 
among  the  apostles,  should  have  gone  to  school  to  Paul, 
and  should  have  studied  him  so  faithfully  and  sympa- 
thetically that  the  only  epistle  which  we  have  from  his 
pen  is  essentially  Pauline  from  beginning  to  end. 

But  it  is  not  simply  the  Paulinism  of  the  epistle  that 
is  surprising.  No  less  striking  is  the  entire  lack  of  that 
element  of  personal  reminiscence  which  we  might  justly 
expect  to  be  very  prominent  in  the  letters  of  a  man  who 
stood  as  near  to  Christ  as  Peter  did.  So  far  as  this  letter 
goes,  there  is  not  a  hint  in  it  that  the  author  had  ever 
known  Jesus  personally,  except  the  bare  reference  in  v.  1 
to  the  fact  that  he  was  a  witness  of  Christ's  sufferings, 
which  probably  means  that  he  had  seen  him  crucified. 
All  that  he  says  about  him  might  have  been  said  equally 
well  by  Paul,  or  even  by  one  of  Paul's  converts.1  If  our 
epistle  was  written  by  Peter,  it  is  necessary  to  assume  that 
he  who  was  Jesus'  leading  disciple,  and  one  of  his  closest 
companions  during  his  entire  ministry,  felt  Paul's  influ- 
ence to  such  a  degree  that  his  own  personal  impression 

1  The  only  passage  in  which  there  is  any  reference  to  Christ's  earthly  life 
over  and  above  his  death  and  resurrection,  which  of  course  are  spoken  of  fre- 
quently, as  in  the  epistles  of  Paul  and  in  all  the  literature  of  the  period,  is 

1  Pet.  ii.  22-23,  where  we  read:  "  Who  did  no  sin,  neither  was  guile  found  in 
his  mouth:  who,  when  he  was  reviled,  reviled  not  again;  when  he  suffered, 
threatened  not;  but  committed   himself  to  him  that  judgeth  righteously." 
But  there  is  nothing  in  this  to  betray  personal  acquaintance  with  Jesus  and 
quite  as  much  is  found  in  many  early  Christian  documents  written  by  men 
who  were  not  Christ's  immediate  disciples  (compare,  for  instance,  Rom.  xv.  3 ; 

2  Cor.  x.  1;  Clement:    Ad  Cor.  l(i;  Barnabas.  r»;    Ignatius:   Sniyr.  3;  Poly- 
carp,  10;  and  especially  Heb.  ii.  18,  iv.  15,  v.  7  sq.)> 


THE   DEVELOPING    CHURCH  595 

of  the  Master  was  replaced  by  Paul's  conception  of  him, 
and  that  he  who  had  known  Jesus  so  intimately  saw 
him  in  his  later  years  only  through  the  eyes  of  a  man  who 
had  never  looked  upon  him.  The  improbability  of  such 
an  assumption  goes  without  saying.1 

But  if  we  question  the  Petrine  authorship,  how  are  we 
to  explain  the  words,  "  Peter,  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ," 
which  occur  at  the  beginning  of  the  epistle,  and  which 
constitute  the  sole  ground  for  its  ascription  to  him  ?  That 
the  letter  was  originally  pseudonymous,  —  that  it  was 
given  Peter's  name  by  its  author,  —  it  is  very  difficult  to 
believe.  For  if  the  writer  wished  his  epistle  to  pass  for 
the  work  of  Peter,  it  is  hardly  likely  that  he  would  have 
contented  himself  with  the  mere  mention  of  his  name  in 
the  salutation.  We  should  certainly  expect  him  to  assume 
the  character  of  Peter  in  other  parts  of  the  epistle,  or  to  indi- 
cate its  alleged  origin  in  other  ways,  as  we  find  the  author 
of  Second  Peter  doing  in  more  than  one  passage.2  More- 
over, it  might  fairly  be  expected  that  if  the  author  wished 
to  write  in  the  name  of  an  apostle,  he  would  choose  Paul's 
name  rather  than  Peter's;  for  those  whom  he  addressed 
owed  their  Christianity  to  Paul,  and  with  him  the  writer 
himself  was  in  closest  sympathy.  It  is  difficult,  also,  to 
discover  any  adequate  motive  for  pseudonymity.  There 
were  still,  at  the  time  the  epistle  was  written,  apostles  and 
prophets  in  the  church  who  were  speaking  and  writing 
under  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  it  was  not 
necessary  for  the  author  to  invoke  the  name  of  one  of  the 
Twelve,  in  order  to  secure  a  hearing  and  give  his  words 
effect.  Finally,  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  epistle 
was  called  forth  by  a  particular  emergency;  that  it  was 
written  to  Christians  who  had  recently  begun  to  suffer 
persecution,  and  that  its  aim  was  to  exhort  and  encourage 

1  The  difficulty  of  ascribing  the  epistle  to  Peter  is  enhanced  by  the  fact 
that  the  condition  of  the  Christians  addressed  makes  it  necessary  to  bring  its 
composition  down  to  the  time  of  Domitian.    Ramsay  lays  stress  upon  the  late 
date  of  the  epistle,  and  is  able  to  ascribe  it  to  Peter  only  on  the  assumption 
that  he  lived  until  the  year  80  or  thereabouts   (see  above,  p.  593).    But,  as 
already  seen,  it  is  altogether  probable  that  Peter  perished  in  the  persecution 
of  Nero  in  the  year  6i. 

2  2  Pet,  i.  14,  18,  iii.  1, 


596  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

them  in  the  face  of  the  trials  they  were  undergoing. 
Under  these  circumstances,  to  give  the  letter  the  name  of 
an  apostle  who  must  have  been  already  dead  —  or  the 
writer  would  not  have  ventured  to  use  his  name  —  would 
be  to  defeat  its  purpose  by  destroying  its  special  applica- 
bility to  the  case  in  hand.  In  view  of  all  these  considera- 
tions, it  can  hardly  be  supposed  that  the  epistle  was  origi- 
nally pseudonymous.  It  is  much  more  probable  that  it 
was  anonymous,  like  Hebrews,  Barnabas,  and  the  epis- 
tles of  John,  and  that  it  became  attached  to  the  name  o£ 
Peter  only  in  the  second  century,  his  name,  perhaps,  being 
written  upon  the  margin  of  a  manuscript  by  some  scribe, 
and  adopted  thence  into  the  text.  This  supposition  is  not 
without  confirmation  in  the  literature  of  the  second  cen- 
tury. Though  the  epistle  was  known  and  used  certainly 
by  Polycarp  and  Papias,  and  possibly  by  other  early 
writers,  it  is  nowhere  quoted  or  referred  to  as  Peter's 
until  almost  the  close  of  the  second  century,  by  Clement 
of  Alexandria,  Irenseus,  and  Tertullian.  Even  the  Mura- 
torian  Fragment  fails  altogether  to  mention  it,  which  is 
very  surprising  if  the  author  of  that  fragment  knew  it  to 
be  Peter's.1 

The  date  of  the  epistle  it  is  possible  to  determine  with 
considerable  exactness.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  its 
writer  was  acquainted  at  least  with  the  epistles  to  the 
Romans  and  Ephesians,  if  not  with  others  of  Paul's 
letters.  Its  composition  therefore  must  be  put  later  than 
the  time  of  Paul's  Roman  imprisonment.  Still  farther,  the 
work  shows  that  a  regular  and  systematic  persecution  was 
taking  place  in  Asia  Minor  as  well  as  elsewhere ; 2  a  per- 

1  The  suggestion  that  the  epistle  was  originally  anonymous  was  first  made 
by  Harnack  in  his  Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  II.  1,  S.  100  sq.  (cf.  also  Das 
Neue  Testament  um  das  Jahr  200,  S.  81) .    But  Harnack  holds  that  the  name  of 
Peter  was  added  in  the  second  century  at  the  time  of  the  canonization  of  the 
epistle  in  order  to  give  it  the  requisite  apostolic  authority.    The  latter  opinion, 
however,  can  hardly  be  maintained  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  and  the  three  epistles  of  John  found  their  way  into  the  canon  without 
the  addition  of  an  apostolic  name.     It  seems  better  indeed  to  regard  the  addi- 
tion of  Peter's  name  as  the  mere  chance  act  of  an  individual  scrilio,  who  had 
no  idea  of  giving  the  epistle  canonical  authority,  but  thought  he  §&w  good 
reason  for  regarding  it  as  the  work  of  Peter. 

2  1  Pet.  v.  0. 


THE  DEVELOPING   CHURCH  597 

secution  which  was  carried  on  under  the  direction  of  the 
Roman  authorities,  and  was  resulting  even  in  the  death 
of  Christians.1  It  had  already  gone  so  far,  indeed,  that 
the  profession  of  Christianity  was  itself  regarded  as  wor- 
thy of  punishment,  even  though  other  offences  could  not 
be  proved.2  This  can  hardly  have  been  the  case  during 
the  reign  of  Nero ;  for  the  disciples  were  executed  by 
him  not  as  Christians,  but  as  men  who  were  guilty  of 
particular  crimes,  and  there  is,  besides,  no  evidence  that 
his  persecution  extended  beyond  Rome.  Such  a  state 
of  affairs,  therefore,  as  is  depicted  in  First  Peter  can 
hardly  have  existed  until  a  later  day.  On  the  other 
hand,  there  is  no  indication  in  the  epistle  that  the  Chris- 
tians addressed  were  called  upon  to  worship  the  image  of 
the  emperor,  and  that  their  refusal  to  do  so  was  visited 
with  punishment,  as  was  the  case  during  the  later  years  of 
Domitian's  reign  when  the  Apocalypse  was  written  with 
its  letters  to  the  seven  churches  of  Asia.3  The  author  of 
the  latter  work,  moreover,  looks  back  apparently  upon  a 
period  of  long-continued  persecution,4  while  the  author  of 
First  Peter  speaks  of  the  trial  which  his  readers  are  under- 
going as  a  new  thing.5  And  indeed  the  whole  tone  of  the 
Apocalypse,  with  its  uncompromising  hostility  to  the  em- 
pire, and  with  its  conviction  that  between  it  and  the  church 
only  enmity  is  possible,  contrasts  strikingly  with  Peter's 
friendly  attitude  toward  the  state,  and  his  hope  that  the 
persecution  will  soon  cease.6  In  view  of  all  these  consid- 
erations, it  seems  probable  that  our  epistle  was  written 
later  than  the  reign  of  Nero,  but  before  the  composition 
of  the  Apocalypse;  that  is,  probably  in  the  early  part  of 
Domitian's  reign,  some  time  before  the  year  90.7 

First  Peter  was  apparently  written  in  Rome.    The  author 
sends  greetings,  in  v.  13,  from  the  church  "  that  is  in  Baby- 

1  Cf .  1  Pet.  i.  6,  iii.  15,  iv.  15,  16.  *  Rev.  ii.  13,  vi.  10,  xviii.  24. 

2  1  Pet.  iv.  15.  6  i  Pet.  iv.  12. 

3  Cf.  Rev.  xiii.  15,  xx.  4;  and  see  p.  634,  below. 

6  Cf.  1  Pet,  iii.  13  sq.,  iv.  7,  v.  10. 

7  If  Professor  Ramsay  be  correct  in  contending  that  the  Christians  were 
persecuted  also  under  Vespasian  and  Titus  (Church  in  the  Roman  Empire, 
p.  253  sq.),  it  is  possible  to  date  the  epistle  before  Domitian's  accession,  that 
is,  between  70  and  81.    But  of  such  persecution  there  is  little  evidence. 


598  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

Ion."  The  name  "  Babylon  "  is  employed  in  the  Apocalypse 
to  designate  Rome,  and  though  its  use  in  an  epistle  is 
somewhat  surprising,  other  equally  figurative  expressions 
occur  in  i.  1  and  v.  13,1  and  it  is  certainly  upon  the  face 
of  it  much  more  likely  that  a  letter  to  the  Christians  of 
Asia  Minor  should  be  written  from  Rome  than  from  dis- 
tant Babylon,  which  -played,  so  far  as  we  know,  no  part 
in  early  church  history.  The  author's  acquaintance  with 
Romans  and  Ephesians  also  suggests  Rome  as  the  place  of 
composition,  and  the  general  character  of  the  epistle,  with 
its  emphasis  upon  loyalty  to  the  state  and  subjection  to  the 
civil  authorities,  points  in  the  same  direction.  Finally,  it 
is  to  be  noticed  that  Mark,  from  whom  the  author  sends 
greetings,2  was  in  Rome,  certainly  during  the  latter  years  of 
Paul's  life,3  and  probably  still  later  with  Peter. 

The  writer  of  the  epistle,  if  it  be  assumed  that  it  was 
not  Peter  himself,  we  have  no  means  of  determining 
with  certainty;  but  it  is  at  any  rate  not  beyond  the 
bounds  of  possibility  that  he  may  have  been  Paul's  old 
friend  and  companion,  Barnabas.  Barnabas  was  a  Jew, 
and  that  the  author  of  our  letter  was  the  same  is  ren- 
dered exceedingly  probable  by  more  than  one  passage.1 
Barnabas,  moreover,  was  a  Hellenist,  and  the  excellent 
Greek  of  the  epistle  and  the  writer's  familiarity  with  the 
Septuagint,  and  his  use  of  it  to  the  complete  exclusion  of 
the  Hebrew  original,  point  in  the  same  direction.5  Barna- 
bas was  also  a  Levite,  and  the  conception  of  all  Christians 
as  priests,  which  appears  in  1  Peter  ii.  5  and  9,  would  be 
a  natural  one  to  him.  Still  farther,  Barnabas  was  for  many 
years  an  intimate  friend  and  companion  of  Paul,  and  rec- 
ognizing Paul  as  he  did  as  the  leader  in  the  missionary 
work  they  were  carrying  on  together,  he  must  have  been 
greatly  influenced  by  his  thinking;  and  though  he  did  not 
at  once  understand  him  fully  and  make  his  profound  con- 
ceptions his  own,6  no  one  had  a  better  opportunity  than  he 

UPet.  i.  1:  "The  elect  who  are  sojourners  of  the  Dispersion";  v.  13: 
"  She  that  is  elect  together  with  you." 

a  1  Pet.  v.  13.  s  Col.  iv.  10.  «  1  Pet.  i.  11,  14,  ii.  9. 

5  These  considerations,  of  course,  make  against  the  Petrine  authorship. 

6  See  above,  p.  216. 


THE  DEVELOPING   CHURCH  599 

to  become  acquainted  with  them,  and  he  may  have  been 
convinced  ultimately  of  their  truth.  Possibly  his  experi- 
ence at  Antioch,  when  he  followed  Peter  in  separating 
himself  from  his  Gentile  brethren,  was  the  means  of 
opening  his  eyes  to  the  real  significance  of  Paul's  teach- 
ing as  they  had  not  before  been  opened.  Certainly,  the 
course  he  took  at  Antioch  could  not  permanently  satisfy 
him,  and  a  reaction  must  ultimately  set  in.  That  such  a 
reaction  actually  did  take  place,  and  that  he  resumed  his 
missionary  work  among  the  Gentiles,  is  rendered  probable 
by  Paul's  reference  to  him  in  1  Cor.  ix.  6.  But  if  he  again 
put  himself  squarely  upon  the  platform  of  a  universal 
Christianity,  the  Gospel  of  Paul  must  have  appealed  to 
him  more  powerfully  than  ever;  for  in  it  alone  could  he 
find  a  complete  and  satisfactory  solution  of  the  difficulties 
which  he  had  so  keenly  felt  in  his  own  experience,  and 
which  he  had  found  it  vain  to  endeavor  to  solve  by  any 
halfway  and  compromising  measures. 

On  the  other  hand,  while  Barnabas  was  a  companion  of 
Paul  and  undoubtedly  felt  his  influence  most  profoundly, 
he  was  a  member  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem  in  its  early 
days  and  may  have  been  in  the  city  at  the  time  of  Christ's 
death.  If  so,  he  was  one  of  the  very  few  companions  of 
Paul  who  could  fulfil  the  conditions  apparently  involved 
in  1  Peter  v.  1.  Again,  it  would  be  very  natural  for  Bar- 
nabas to  write  to  the  Christians  of  Asia  Minor.  Some  of 
them  certainly  owed  their  Christianity  to  him  as  well  as 
to  Paul ;  and  it  is  not  at  all  unreasonable  to  suppose  that 
he  carried  on  the  work  in  that  part  of  the  world  after  the 
latter's  departure  for  the  West.  He  was,  at  any  rate,  still  a 
travelling  missionary  while  Paul  was  residing  at  Ephesus,1 
and  was  well  known  to  the  Colossians  when  Paul  wrote 
to  them  from  Rome.2  Moreover,  Silvanus,  who  is  referred 
to  in  v.  12,  was  one  of  his  old  acquaintances,3  and  what 
is  still  more  significant,  Mark,  whom  the  writer  calls  his 
"son"  in  v.  13,  was  his  nephew  or  cousin,4  and  a  favorite 
protege  and  companion.5  That  Barnabas  should  speak  of 

il  Cor.  ix.  6.  2  Col.  iv.  10.  8  Acts  xv.  25  sq. 

4  Col.  iv.  10.  6  Acts  xv.  37  sq. 


600  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

him  as  his  son  was  very  natural,  but  it  is  not  likely  that 
any  one  else  would  do  it  save  Paul  himself.  Finally, 
if  it  be  assumed  that  Barnabas  was  the  author  of  First 
Peter,  the  striking  fact  is  explained  that  both  in  East 
and  in  West  an  epistle  was  ascribed  to  him  which  was 
in  reality  written  by  some  one  else.  In  Alexandria  his 
name  was  attached  at  an  early  day  to  the  work  which  is 
still  erroneously  called  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  while  in 
Carthage  he  was  reputed  to  be  the  author  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews.1  It  may  have  been  widely  known  that  he 
had  written  an  important  work;  but  as  he  had  not  chosen 
to  inscribe  it  with  his  name,  its  identity  was  uncertain,  and 
in  the  East  one  anonymous  letter  was  ascribed  to  him,  in 
the  West  another.  So  far  as  I  am  aware,  the  name  of  Bar- 
nabas has  not  before  been  suggested  in  connection  with 
First  Peter,  and  it  is  of  course  suggested  now  as  little 
more  than  a  possibility.  There  is,  at  any  rate,  no  one  else 
known  to  us  save  Barnabas  to  whom  it  can  be  ascribed 
with  any  show  of  reason,  if  the  Petrine  authorship  be 
questioned. 

The  second  of  the  two  epistles  ascribed  by  tradition 
to  the  apostle  Peter  is  still  more  evidently  the  work  of 
another  hand  than  his.  The  letter  is  very  closely  related 
to  the  Epistle  of  Jude.  Indeed,  nearly  the  whole  of  the 
latter  is  incorporated  substantially  in  2  Peter  ii.  1-iii.  3. 
At  the  same  time  the  author  of  Second  Peter  did  not  write 
with  the  purpose  of  combating  false  teachers,  as  Jude  did, 
but  simply  with  the  aim  of  confirming  his  readers  in  their 
faith  in  the  second  coming  of  Christ  for  salvation  and  for 
judgment,  —  a  faith  which  was  beginning  to  grow  faint  in 
many  quarters  because  of  the  long  and  unexpected  delay.2 
That  the  author  attacks  and  denounces  false  teachers  in 
the  second  and  third  chapters  is  only  because  such  teachers 
were  denying  the  second  coming,  and  were  thus  leading 
many  astray  and  contributing  to  the  widespread  uncertainty 
and  doubt.  The  work  is  very  practical  and  contains  some 
striking  utterances,3  but  in  the  parallel  passage  it  is  by  no 
means  as  pregnant  and  incisive  as  Jude,  and  it  lacks  the 

i  See  above,  p.  480.    2  Cf.  2  Pet.  ii.  12  sq.,  iii.  1  sq.    «  Cf.  especially  2  Pet.  i.  5-7. 


THE   DEVELOPING  CHURCH  ()0l 

profoundness  and  richness  of  thought  that  mark  First 
Peter.  The  diction  is  Greek  rather  than  Hellenistic,  but 
the  style  is  awkward  and  betrays  an  author  without  liter- 
ary training  and  of  comparatively  little  education.  The 
repeated  emphasis,  however,  upon  knowledge  is  very 
marked  and  shows  that  the  writer,  though  not  a  man  of 
culture  and  though  a  decided  opponent  of  the  heretical 
Gnostics,  was  a  genuine  Greek  in  his  conception  of  the 
function  of  knowledge  in  the  accomplishment  of  salvation.1 
The  epistle  bears  the  name  of  "  Simon  Peter,  a  servant 
and  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ " ;  and  it  is  not  possible  in  this 
case,  as  in  the  case  of  First  Peter,  to  suppose  that  the 
name  was  added  to  a  letter  originally  anonymous,  for 
Petrine  authorship  is  assumed  in  i.  14,  16  sq.,  iii.  1,  15. 
The  author,  in  fact,  if  he  was  not  Peter  himself,  took  par- 
ticular pains  to  have  his  epistle  pass  as  Peter's.  We  are 
dealing  therefore  either  with  a  genuine  Petrine  production, 
or  with  a  pseudonymous  work  in  the  strict  sense.  But 
that  we  are  dealing  with  the  latter  and  not  with  a  writing 
from  the  pen  of  the  apostle  Peter,  there  can  be,  it  seems  to 
me,  no  doubt.  It  is  true  that  the  denial  of  the  Petrine 
authorship  of  First  Peter  makes  it  easier  to  accept  the 
Petrine  authorship  of  Second  Peter;  for  nothing  could  well 
be  clearer  than  that  the  two  epistles  are  not  the  work  of 
the  same  hand.  The  differences,  both  in  style  and  in 
theological  conception,  are  too  thoroughgoing  and  funda- 
mental to  permit  the  assumption  of  identity  of  authorship.2 
But  such  denial  does  not  help  us  in  the  present  case,  for 
the  epistle  contains  many  indications  of  a  post-apostolic 
date.  In  the  first  place,  the  author  certainly  knew  and 
made  extensive  use  of  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  which,  as  has 

1  Cf.  2  Pet.  i.  2,  3,  6,  8,  iii.  18,  and  especially  i.  4,  where  the  author  gives 
utterance  to  the  Greek  idea  (of  which  the  Gnostics  made  so  much)  of  partici- 
pation in  the  divine  nature  and  liberation  from  the  corruption  of  the  world. 

2  The  style  of  1  Peter  is  more  Hellenistic  than  that  of  2  Peter,  but  it  is 
much  smoother  and  richer.    The  author  of  the  former  was  a  man  of  consider- 
able culture :  the  author  of  the  latter  was  entirely  without  it.    So  far  as  the  dif- 
ference of  theological  conception  is  concerned,  it  is  enough  to  remark  that  the 
Paulinism  of  1  Peter  is  entirely  wanting  in  2  Peter,  and  that  the  sufferings 
and  resurrection  of  Christ,  which  are  so  strongly  emphasized  in  the  former,  are 
not  mentioned  in  the  latter. 


602  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

been  already  seen,  cannot  have  been  written  before  the 
closing  years  of  the  first  century.1  It  is  significant  also 
that  the  false  teachers  are  condemned  still  more  unmerci- 
fully than  in  Jude,  and  that  all  idea  of  saving  them  from 
their  errors,  an  idea  which  appears  in  Jude,  seems  to  have 
been  definitely  abandoned.2  It  is  a  still  farther  indication 
of  the  post-apostolic  date  of  Second  Peter  that  the  days  of 
the  original  Christians  are  referred  to  in  iii.  4  as  already 
long  past,  and  that  the  prophets,  the  Lord,  and  the  apos- 
tles are  mentioned  in  iii.  2,  as  the  three  authorities  for  a 
knowledge  of  Christian  truth,  just  as  they  are  by  the  old 
Catholic  fathers  of  the  late  second  and  following  centuries. 
Finally,  the  author  is  not  only  acquainted  with  Paul's  epis- 
tles, but  he  even  ascribes  to  them,  it  would  seem,  canon- 
ical authority,  placing  them  on  a  level  with,  or  at  any  rate 
ranging  them  alongside  of,  "the  other  Scriptures."3  All 
these  indications  point  to  a  time  at  least  as  late  as  the  be- 
ginning and  very  probably  as  late  as  the  middle  of  the 
second  century.  So  far  as  external  testimony  goes,  the 
epistle  might  have  been  written  even  as  late  as  the  very 
end  of  the  second  century;  for  the  earliest  traces  of  its 
existence  are  found  in  the  writings  of  the  fathers  of  the 
third  century,  and  it  was  later  than  any  other  work  in 
acquiring  general  recognition  as  a  part  of  the  canon.4  Its 
authenticity  is  widely  questioned  even  in  conservative  cir- 
cles, more  widely  questioned  than  the  authenticity  of  any 

1  Spitta  has  recently  endeavored  to  show  that  Jude  is  dependent  upon 
2  Peter  (Der  zweite  Brief  Petri  und  der  Brief  Judae) ;  but  his  attempt  is  a 
failure.    The  dependence  of  2  Peter  on  Jude  is,  in  fact,  abundantly  manifest, 
and  is  almost  universally  recognized  by  scholars.    It  is  to  be  noticed  that  the 
Epistle  of  Jude  is  controlled  throughout  by  a  single  definite  purpose,  while 
the  parallel  passage  in  Peter  clearly  shows  the  effort  to  make  use  of  Jude's 
words,  and  at  the  same  time  to  turn  them  to  another  purpose  than  that  for 
which  Jude  employed  them,  and  so  we  find  in  2  Peter  numerous  additions 
which  are  in  entire  accord  with  the  purpose  of  the  epistle  as  a  whole,  but  are 
out  of  accord  with  the  original  purpose  of  the  words  quoted  from  Jude. 

In  a  number  of  cases,  moreover,  the  words  of  2  Peter  can  be  understood 
only  in  the  light  of  Jude,  the  original  and  natural  significance  of  the  words, 
being  lost  in  the  form  in  which  they  are  used  in  2  Peter.  Compare,  for 
instance,  2  Pet.  ii.  11,  which  can  be  understood  only  in  the  light  of  Jude  9j 
2  Pet.  ii.  12,  in  the  light  of  Jude  10;  and  2  Pet.  ii.  17,  in  the  light  of  Jude  12. 

2  Compare  2  Pet.  ii.  20  sq.  with  Jude  22  sq. 
8  2  Pet.  iii.  16. 

4  See  Holtzmann:  Einleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament,  3te  Auflage,  S.  326. 


THE  DEVELOPING  CHUKCH  603 

other  canonical  book,  and  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  it 
is  the  latest  of  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament. 

But  though  First  Peter  is  probably  and  Second  Peter 
certainly  not  the  work  of  Peter,  the  tradition  which  con- 
nects the  Gospel  of  Mark  with  his  name  has  more  to  com- 
mend it.  That  tradition  has  been  already  referred  to,  and 
Papias'  account  of  the  composition  of  the  Gospel  has  been 
quoted.1  There  is  no  reason  for  referring  his  words  to 
any  other  work  than  our  second  Gospel,  nor  is  there  any 
reason  for  doubting  the  general  accuracy  of  his  account. 
All  that  we  know  of  Mark  goes  to  confirm  the  ascription 
of  the  Gospel  to  him.  As  has  been  already  seen,  its  style 
and  contents  show  that  it  was  written  primarily  for  Gen- 
tile Christians  by  a  Christian  Jew,  who  had  broken  en- 
tirely loose  from  the  trammels  of  Judaism,  and  was  a 
member  of  the  world-church  to  whom  distinctions  of  race 
and  lineage  meant  nothing.  But  Mark  was  exactly  such 
a  man.  A  resident  of  Jerusalem  in  his  earlier  days,  he 
became  later  a  disciple  and  companion  of  Paul,  and 
labored  with  him  both  in  East  and  West  for  the  spread  of 
Christianity  among  the  Gentiles.  All  the  indications  also, 
which  point  to  Rome  as  the  place  of  the  composition  of 
the  Gospel,  are  favorable  to  the  tradition  that  Mark  was 
its  author;  for  he  was  in  Rome  at  any  rate  in  the  late 
fifties,  and  twenty  years  or  more  later  when  the  First  Epis- 
tle of  Peter  was  written.2  It  should  be  noticed,  finally, 
that  our  second  Gospel  nowhere  claims  to  be  the  work  of 
an  eyewitness  of  the  events  recorded,  nor  even  hints  at 
such  a  thing,  and  in  this  respect,  too,  Mark  apparently 
satisfies  the  conditions ;  for  nothing  that  we  know  of  him 
suggests  that  he  was  a  personal  disciple  of  Jesus,  and 
Papias  distinctly  asserts  that  he  was  not. 

Papias'  report  that  Mark  got  the  material  for  his  Gospel 
from  Peter  also  finds  confirmation  in  the  Gospel  itself. 
There  are  many  indications  in  it  that  the  author  was  par- 
ticularly interested  in  Peter,  and  many  of  Peter's  own 
characteristics  appear  in  it.  It  is  just  such  a  work  as  we 
should  expect  a  man  to  write  who  had  been  intimately 

i  See  above,  p.  571  sq.          2  Cf.  Col.  iv.  10 ;  Philemon  24  and  1  Pet.  v.  13. 


604  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

associated  with  the  apostle,  and  had  gained  his  knowl- 
edge of  Christ  largely  from  him.  In  view  of  these  various 
considerations,  the  accuracy  of  Papias'  account  may  safely 
be  relied  upon,  and  it  may  be  assumed  that  though  our 
second  Gospel  was  not  Peter's  own  work,  and  though  use 
was  made  in  it  of  other  sources  besides  his  teaching,  it 
yet  contains  in  large  measure  his  reminiscences  of  Jesus, 
and  represents,  at  least  in  a  general  way,  his  conception  of 
the  Master's  character  and  work* 

But  if  the  Gospel  of  Mark  be  connected  with  Peter  in 
the  way  that  has  been  indicated,  it  is  perhaps  possible  to 
gain  from  it  not  simply  his  picture  of  Jesus,  but  also  some 
knowledge  of  the  views  of  Christianity  which  he  held  in 
the  later  years  of  his  life.  All  that  we  learn  from  it  is 
entirely  in  keeping  with  what  we  know  of  him  from  other 
sources.  The  work  reveals  the  same  impression  of  Jesus' 
power  which  Peter  felt  so  strongly.  It  is  in  Christ's 
mighty  works  that  the  writer  is  chiefly  interested;  his 
words  concern  him  far  less.  The  simplicity  and  directness 
which  were  so  characteristic  of  Peter  also  appear  in  the 
Gospel,  and  it  is  marked  by  the  same  practical  interest 
that  controlled  him  so  largely.  It  is  no  accident  that  re- 
pentance, upon  which  he  laid  special  emphasis  in  his  dis- 
courses recorded  in  the  early  chapters  of  Acts,  stands  in 
the  very  forefront  of  Mark's  Gospel.  It  can  hardly  be 
doubted  that  with  his  decidedly  practical  interest  Peter 
was  heartily  in  accord  with  the  common  conception  of 
Christianity  which  prevailed  in  his  day,  and  that  in  his 
later  years,  as  well  as  in  his  earlier,  he  conceived  of  the 
Christian  life  as  the  faithful  observance  of  God's  law.  If 
Peter  was  thus  a  representative  of  the  ordinary  un-Pauline 
conception  of  the  Gospel,  and  if  he  taught  it  to  the  Chris- 
tians of  Rome,  it  is  much  easier  to  explain  the  fact  that 
that  type  of  thought  was  permanently  accepted  by  them, 
and  that  while  honoring  the  name  of  Paul  they  failed 
to  adopt  the  latter's  views.  If  Peter  followed  the  lead 
of  Paul  and  preached  the  Gospel  which  he  preached,  it  is 
certainly  surprising  that  the  Roman  Christians  so  com- 
pletely misunderstood  or  disregarded  Paul's  teaching. 


THE  DEVELOPING  CHURCH  605 

Taught  by  both  of  the  men  whom  the  church  most  highly 
venerated,  it  would  seem  that  his  distinctive  views  must 
have  made  more  impression  than  they  did*  If  First 
Peter  contains  the  conceptions  of  the  apostle  Peter,  the 
subsequent  history  of  thought  in  the  Roman  church  is 
much  more  difficult  to  explain  than  if  the  Gospel  of  Mark 
represents  him.  That  both  of  them  can  be  traced  back  to 
him  is  impossible.  If  he  wrote  First  Peter,  the  influence  of 
his  thought  was  not  felt  to  any  appreciable  degree  by  the 
author  of  Mark;  if  the  author  of  Mark  wrote  in  the 
spirit  of  Peter,  then  the  epistle  is  by  some  other  hand. 

But  the  Gospel  may  also  be  supposed  to  represent 
accurately  Peter's  final  views  touching  the  Christian's 
relation  to  the  Jewish  law.  His  earlier  progress  in  the 
direction  of  liberalism  has  been  already  sketched,  and  it 
cannot  be  doubted  that  before  the  end  of  his  life  he 
reached  that  position  which  was  evidently  held  by  the 
author  of  the  second  Gospel,  —  a  position  of  complete 
superiority  and  indifference  to  all  national  and  race  dis- 
tinctions within  the  Christian  church,  —  and  that  he  rose 
not  alone  above  bigotry  and  narrowness,  but  also  above 
controversy  upon  the  subject.1  Had  he  not  reached  this 
position  he  could  not  have  secured  the  confidence  of  the 
Christians  of  Rome  and  exerted  the  influence  there  that 
he  did. 

Thus,  though  the  first  and  second  epistles  of  Peter 
cannot  be  employed  as  sources  for  a  knowledge  of  the 
apostle's  views,  we  may  gather  some  instructive  hints 
from  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  —  hints  that  make  the  history  of 
the  Roman  church  much  easier  to  understand  than  it 
would  otherwise  be.  The  epistle  of  Clement,  sent  by  the 
Christians  of  Rome  to  their  Corinthian  brethren  almost 
at  the  close  of  the  century,  shows  the  development  well 
under  way.  The  common  conceptions  of  the  church 
at  large  were  already  in  control,  and  though  words  and 
formulae  of  Paul  were  still  current,  the  underlying  prin- 

1  It  is  not  without  significance  that  Peter  remembered,  and  emphasized  so 
that  Mark  too  remembered  them,  the  striking  words  of  Christ  recorded  in 
Mark  vii.  15  sq.  These  words  must  have  been  vividly  recalled  to  him  by  his 
experience  on  the  housetop  in  Joppa. 


606  THE    APOSTOLIC   AGE 

ciples  were  largely  Peter's,  and  not  Paul's.  It  was  not 
simply  because  Peter  was  the  leader  of  the  Twelve  Apos- 
tles, nor  merely  because  he  spent  some  time  in  Rome  after 
Paul's  death,  that  his  figure  overshadowed  the  figure  of 
the  great  apostle  to  the  Gentiles  in  the  memory  of  the 
Roman  church ;  but  also  because  the  Christianity  which 
he  preached  was  entirely  in  accord  with  the  principles  that 
naturally  prevailed  most  widely  among  the  Christians  of 
Rome,  both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  and  was  fitted  to  unite 
them  in  practical,  aggressive  work  whatever  their  theoreti- 
cal and  speculative  differences.  The  Roman  church  is  not 
wholly  in  error  in  claiming  Peter  as  its  founder.  It  was 
he  and  not  Paul  whose  impress  was  chiefly  felt  in  the 
formative  period  of  its  career,  and  through  it  he  ultimately 
became  the  great  apostle  of  the  entire  Western  church, 
which  always  felt  the  dominating  influence  of  Rome.1 

3.    JOHN  AND  THE  CHURCH  OF  ASIA 

Our  sources  bear  witness  not  only  to  the  presence  of  the 
apostle  Peter  in  Rome,  but  also  to  the  residence  of  the 
apostle  John  in  Ephesus.  Like  Peter's  presence  in  Rome, 
John's  Ephesian  residence  has  been  disputed  by  many 
scholars,2  but  the  tradition  seems  too  strong  to  be  shaken. 
The  chief  witness  for  it  is  Irenseus,  a  pupil  of  Polycarp, 
bishop  of  Smyrna,  who  reports  that  Polycarp  was  a  personal 
disciple  of  John,  and  that  the  latter  lived  in  Ephesus  until 
the  reign  of  Trajan,  who  became  emperor  in  the  year  98.3 

1  The  ancient  theory  that  Peter  was  the  first  bishop  of  Rome,  or  that  he 
appointed  its  first  bishop,  was  due  to  the  assumption  of  the  fathers  of  the 
late  second  and  third  centuries  that  the  ecclesiastical  organization  and  insti- 
tutions of  their  own  day  were  all  apostolic.    But  the  rejection  of  that  theory 
need  not  involve  a  denial  of  the  fact  that  Peter  spent  some  years  in  Rome, 
and  profoundly  influenced  the  development  of  Roman  Christianity. 

2  Most  recently  by  Harnack  (Chronologie  d.  alt-christlichen  Litteratur, 
S.  656  sq.). 

8  In  his  epistle  to  Florinus  (quoted  by  Eusebius :  H.  E.  V.  20)  Irenaeus  men- 
tions his  own  acquaintance  with  Polycarp  in  Asia,  and  records  that  the  latter  was 
a  personal  disciple  of  John.  In  his  Adv.  User.  II.  22,  5  and  III.  3,  4,  he  reports 
that  John  resided  in  Asia  (in  the  latter  passage  he  says  more  specifically  Ephe- 
sus) until  the  time  of  Trajan.  In  another  passage  in  the  same  work  (III.  1,1) 
he  says  that  "John,  the  disciple  of  the  Lord  who  leaned  upon  his  breast,  pub- 
lished a  Gospel  during  his  residence  at  Ephesus  in  Asia."  Wci/si'n-kcr  justly 
remarks  that  this  is  not  tradition,  but  documentary  evidence  (I.e.  S.  482;  Eng. 
Trans.,  11.  p.  168). 


THE   DEVELOPING   CHURCH  607 

In  addition  to  the  direct  and  explicit  statements  of  Irenseus, 
whose  acquaintance  with  Polycarp  gives  his  statements 
peculiar  force,  we  have  the  independent  testimony  of 
Polycrates,  bishop  of  Hierapolis  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
second  century,1  and  of  his  contemporary,  Clement  of 
Alexandria,2  both  of  whom  refer  to  John's  residence  in 
Ephesus,  though  without  mentioning  the  fact  that  he  lived 
until  the  time  of  Trajan.  The  force  of  all  this  testimony 
cannot  be  broken  by  the  suggestion  that  the  apostle  John 
may  have  been  confounded  with  the  presbyter  John,  who 
lived  in  Asia  about  the  same  time.3  For  though  the  tra- 
dition of  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century,  to  which 
Polycrates  and  Clement  are  witnesses,  might  be  mistaken 
in  the  matter,  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  Irenaeus,  who 
knew  Polycarp  personally,  could  commit  such  a  blunder. 
He  had  not  merely  met  Polycarp  casually;  he  was  his 
pupil,  and  he  must  have  known  of  whom  he  spoke  when  he 
referred  to  John.  But  the  evidence  for  John's  Ephesian 
residence  is  not  external  alone.  The  Johannine  writings 
themselves  testify  to  the  fact ;  for  whatever  may  be  thought 
as  to  their  authorship,  they  at  any  rate  belong  to  Asia,  and 
they  prove  beyond  all  peradventure  that  there  lived  in  that 
quarter  of  the  world,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  first  century, 
a  controlling  personality,  who  had  himself  felt  the  personal 
influence  of  Jesus  and  who  stamped  his  conceptions  upon  a 
large  circle  of  disciples.  In  the  light  of  this  consideration, 
taken  in  connection  with  the  direct  testimonies  already 
referred  to,  the  argument  against  John's  presence  in  Asia, 
based  upon  the  silence  of  Ignatius 4  and  of  other  contem- 
porary writers  can  be  allowed  no  great  weight ;  and  it  may 
safely  be  concluded  that  the  apostle  John  spent  the  latter 

1  In  his  epistle  to  Victor,  quoted  by  Eusebius :  H.  E.  III.  23  and  V.  24. 

2  In  his  Qitis  dives  salvetur?  Chap.  42 ;  also  quoted  by  Eusebius :  H.  E.  III. 
23. 

3  The  presbyter  John  is  mentioned  by  Papias  in  a  passage  quoted  by  Euse- 
bius :  H.  E.  III.  39.    See  below,  p.  (523. 

4  Ignatius  of  Antioch  felt  the  influence  of  the  same  conceptions  that  find 
expression  in  the  Johannine  writings,  as  was  seen  in  the  previous  chapter, 
and  his  silence  respecting  John  and  his  residence  in  Asia  is  certainly  surpris- 
ing, but  not  conclusive.    There  is  no  passage  in  his  epistles  in  which  he  must 
have  referred  to  John,  if  he  knew  that  he  had  resided  there. 


008  THE    APOSTOLIC   AGE 

part  of  his  life  in  Ephesus  and  that  he  died  there  at  a 
great  age,  in  the  reign  of  Trajan,  as  reported  by  Irenseus. 

Of  his  career  before  he  took  up  his  residence  there,  we 
know  even  less  than  of  Peter's.  He  appears  with  Peter 
as  a  leading  figure  in  the  church  of  Jerusalem  during 
its  early  years,  but  the  latter  is  always  represented  as 
the  spokesman  and  chief  actor  in  the  various  scenes  re- 
corded. Together  with  James  and  Peter,  he  is  referred  to 
by  Paul  as  a  "  pillar  "  in  Gal.  i.  9,  but  here,  too,  he  is  less 
conspicuous  than  either  of  the  others ;  and  although 
the  passage  shows  that  he  was  in  Jerusalem  at  the  time 
of  the  council,  he  is  not  mentioned  in  Acts  xv.  Paul 
speaks  of  him  only  in  the  Galatian  passage  just  referred 
to,  and  from  this  time  on  we  know  absolutely  nothing 
about  him  until  we  hear  of  him  in  Ephesus  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  century.  Where  he  went  and  what  he  did 
during  the  long  interval,  we  have  no  means  of  deter- 
mining. He  was  evidently  not  in  Jerusalem  when  Paul 
visited  the  city  for  the  last  time,1  and  it  is  probable  that, 
like  Peter,  he  had  already  sought  other  fields  of  labor.  We 
may  gather  from  the  fourth  Gospel,  whether  it  be  his  own 
work  or  the  work  of  one  of  his  followers,  that  before  the 
end  of  his  life  he  had  cut  entirely  loose  from  the  particu- 
larism of  the  primitive  Jewish  disciples  and  had  ceased  to 
draw  a  line  between  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christianity.  It 
is  by  no  means  likely  that  he  reached  this  broader  view  at 
an  early  day,  for  in  that  case  Paul  would  probably  have 
found  some  occasion  to  refer  to  the  fact ;  but  it  may  well 
be  that  he  was  more  in  sympathy  with  Peter  than  with 
James,  and  that  he,  too,  finally  found  the  extreme  conserva- 
tism of  the  church  of  Jerusalem  uncongenial.  He  cannot 
have  taken  up  his  residence  in  Asia  during  Paul's  life- 
time, as  is  clear  from  the  epistles  to  the  Ephesians  and 
Colossians,  and  especially  from  Paul's  final  note  to  Timo- 
thy, written  just  before  his  death.  It  is  possible  that  he 
had  been  laboring  in  Palestine,  and  when  the  Jewish  war 
broke  out,  and  made  successful  work  among  the  Jews  there 
no  longer  possible,  he  found  his  way  to  Ephesus,  which 

i  Acts  xxi.  18  sq. 


THE   DEVELOPING   CHURCH  609 

was  a  natural  place  for  him  to  choose  as  the  centre  of  his 
future  labors ;  for  it  was  the  most  important  city  of  the 
East  after  Antioch,  and  had  a  large  and  influential  Jewish 
population.  It  is,  at  any  rate,  necessary  to  assume  that  he 
came  to  Ephesus  not  many  years  after  the  death  of  Paul ; 
for  only  a  long  residence  there  is  sufficient  to  account  on 
the  one  hand  for  the  marked  impression  which  Paul's  con- 
ceptions made  upon  him,1  and  on  the  other  hand  for  his 
own  predominating  influence  over  the  church  of  Asia  Minor. 
Five  writings  in  our  New  Testament  —  a  Gospel,  three 
epistles,  and  an  apocalypse  —  are  ascribed  by  tradition 
to  the  apostle  John.  The  Gospel,  though  historical  in 
form,  is  not  an  historical  work  in  the  strict  sense.  It  is 
an  attempt  to  present  in  the  form  of  a  record  of  the  words 
and  works  of  Jesus  the  author's  idea  of  his  character  and 
personality.  The  work  has  a  double  purpose ;  on  the  one 
hand  to  prove  that  "  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God," 
and  on  the  other  hand  to  lead  its  readers  into  such  belief 
in  him  that  they  may  be  truly  united  to  him  and  have  life 
in  his  name.2  In  its  effort  to  prove  that  "Jesus  is  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God,"  the  Gospel  of  John  resembles  the 
Gospel  of  Matthew ;  but  its  apologetic  purpose  is  avowed 
even  more  distinctly  and  is  carried  out  with  even  more 
consistency  and  thoroughness  than  in  the  latter  work. 
Moreover,  the  author  undertakes  to  show  not  simply  that 
Jesus  is  the  Messiah,  as  Matthew  does,  but  that  he  is  a 
spiritual  being  of  a  higher  order  than  man.  This,  in  fact, 
is  what  the  term  "Messiah"  or  "Son  of  God"  means  to  him 
when  he  applies  it  to  Jesus.  Jesus  is  not  simply  a  man 
called  and  anointed  by  God  to  do  a  particular  work  in  the 
world ;  he  is  the  incarnation  of  a  pre-existent  heavenly 
being,  who  came  from  God  and  at  the  end  of  his  earthly 
career  returns  to  God.  Thus  the  author  represents  Jesus 
as  living  constantly  under  the  sense  of  his  higher  nature, 
and  all  his  words  and  deeds  are  interpreted  in  the  light  of 
it.  His  omniscience  and  his  omnipotence  are  frequently 
emphasized  and  viewed  as  manifestations  of  his  higher 
nature ;  and  the  miracles  which  he  performs  are  not  pri- 

1  See  above,  p.  487  sq.  2  John  xx,  31. 

2R 


610  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

marily  for  the  good  of  others,  as  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels, 
but  many  of  them  at  least  are  done  simply  as  signs  to 
show  his  superhuman  power.1  And  so  the  author's  apolo- 
getic purpose  leads  him  to  represent  John  the  Baptist 
solely  in  the  character  of  a  witness  to  Jesus ; 2  leads  him 
to  emphasize  the  testimony  of  Christ's  enemies  to  the 
wonderful  nature  of  his  signs  and  miracles ; 3  leads  him 
to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  betrayal  of  Jesus  and 
his  death  at  the  hands  of  his  enemies  were  only  a  fulfil- 
ment of  his  own  purposes,  that  they  took  place  only  in 
his  own  good  time  and  in  accordance  with  his  will,  and 
were  thus  a  sign  of  his  power  and  not  of  his  weakness.4 
Many  other  objections  urged  against  the  Messiahship  of 
Jesus  are  met  and  answered  by  Jesus  himself  in  the  Gos- 
pel: for  instance,  that  he  has  appeared  without  proper 
legitimation ; 6  that  he  has  not  the  Spirit  of  God,  which  the 
true  Messiah  should  have,  but  oh  the  contrary  a  devil ; 6  and 
finally  that  he  suffers  death  instead  of  abiding  and  setting 
up  a  permanent  kingdom  as  the  true  Messiah  is  to  do.7 

But  the  Gospel  of  John,  though  so  largely  apologetic 
both  in  form  and  in  content,  is  not  simply  an  apology.  As 
already  said,  it  is  also  an  effort  to  lead  its  readers  into  such 
belief  in  Christ  as  shall  truly  unite  them  to  him  and  thus 
give  them  life.  And  so  the  significance  of  Christ  to  the 
believer,  and  the  true  relation  between  them,  are  emphasized 
at  great  length,  that  relation  being  represented  in  genuine 
Pauline  fashion  as  a  complete  mystical  unity.  It  is  thus 
not  only  Christ  in  himself  in  whom  the  author  is  interested, 
but  also  Christ  in  his  relation  to  man,  and  particularly  to 
believers.  Indeed,  the  saving  fellowship  of  the  believer 
with  him  is  the  ultimate  aim  of  the  work.  The  author 
would  prove  Jesus  to  be  the  Christ  in  order  to  arouse  faith 
in  him,  and  thus  bring  about  that  fellowship  which  means 
salvation.8 

I  have  spoken  of  the  Gospel  of  John  as  a  presentation 
of  the  author's  ideal  of  Jesus7  character  and  personality. 

1  Cf.  John  xx.  30,  31.  «  John  ix.  29. 

a  John  i.  29  sq.  «  John  viii.  48  sq. 

8  John  vii.  45,  xi.  46,  xii.  19,  42,  etc.  7  John  x.  15  sq.,  xi.  51  sq.,  xii.  32. 

<  John  x.  18,  xviii.  4  sq.,  xix.  11.  «  Cf.  John  xx.  31. 


THE   DEVELOPING   CHURCH  611 

The  Gospel  of  Matthew  is  also  to  some  degree  an  ideal 
picture,  portraying  Christ  primarily  as  Messiah,  and  group- 
ing together  the  words  and  works  which  serve  to  bring  out 
most  clearly  this  or  that  feature  of  his  Messianic  character. 
But  the  process  of  idealization  is  carried  much  further  by 
the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel.  While  Matthew,  though 
largely  disregarding  the  historic  order  and  setting,  repro- 
duces the  contents  of  the  Logia  apparently  for  the  most 
part  with  fidelity,  John  composes  with  a  free  hand,  and 
though  he  does  not  invent  the  contents  of  the  discourses 
which  he  puts  into  Jesus'  mouth,  he  at  least  gives  them 
their  peculiar  form.  A  comparison  of  the  utterances  of 
Christ  recorded  in  the  fourth  Gospel  with  those  recorded 
in  the  Synoptics  is  sufficient  to  prove  this  beyond  all  shadow 
of  a  doubt ;  and  a  comparison  of  them  with  the  narrative 
portions  of  the  Gospel  and  with  the  First  Epistle  of  John 
only  confirms  what  needs  no  confirmation.  But  it  is  to  be 
noticed  that  the  impression  of  Christ's  personality  which  is 
gained  from  the  fourth  Gospel  is  due  not  simply  to  the 
matter,  but  also  to  the  form  of  the  discourses  which  it  con- 
tains. The  ideas  in  many  of  those  discourses,  if  uttered 
in  the  brief,  incisive,  gnomic  style,  or  in  the  parabolic  form 
which  is  so  common  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  and  only  at 
the  impulse  of  a  particular  occasion  or  suggestion,  would 
leave  a  very  different  impression.  As  it  is,  they  are  re- 
peated and  elaborated  and  emphasized  to  such  an  extent, 
that  they  leave  the  impression  that  Jesus  was  thinking 
and  talking  constantly  of  his  own  divine  personality,  and 
of  his  own  unique  significance,  not  alone  for  those  who 
were  following  him,  but  also  for  all  the  world.  But  if 
reliance  is  to  be  placed  upon  the  united  testimony  of  the 
Synoptic  Gospels,  such  an  impression  as  this  can  hardly 
be  accurate. 

Another  indication  of  the  author's  idealization  of  Jesus 
appears  in  the  fact  that  he  takes  no  account  of  any  historic 
development  in  his  public  ministry.  Instead  of  the  gradual 
unfolding  of  his  Messianic  character  and  mission,  such  as 
is  portrayed  with  the  utmost  naturalness  in  the  Gospel  of 
Mark,  we  find  Jesus  in  the  Gospel  of  John  assuming  pub- 


612  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE 

licly  the  position  of  Messiah  at  the  beginning  of  his  career. 
John  the  Baptist  proclaims  his  identity  clearly  and  unmis- 
takably, and  he  himself  goes  almost  immediately  to  Jeru- 
salem and  exhibits  himself  in  his  Messianic  character  before 
the  multitudes  gathered  there  for  the  feast  of  the  Passover ; 
and  though  his  ministry  continues  three  full  years,  accord- 
ing to  John's  chronology,  no  appreciable  development  ap- 
pears in  his  own  announcement  of  himself  or  in  the  attitude 
of  the  people  toward  him.  The  account  of  John  is  in  this 
respect  very  different  from  that  of  the  Synoptists,  especially 
of  Mark ;  and  it  is  clear  that  it  was  the  author's  desire  to 
present  Jesus  throughout  his  work  in  his  character  of  Mes- 
siah and  Son  of  God  that  led  him  to  regard  the  historic 
sequence  of  events  with  indifference  and  to  paint  the  early 
days  of  Christ's  ministry  in  the  same  colors  as  the  later. 

But  though  it  is  evident,  in  the  light  of  what  has  been 
said,  that  the  fourth  Gospel  contains  an  ideal  picture  of 
Christ,  this  is  a  very  different  thing  from  saying  that  it 
is  simply  the  elaboration  of  an  idea  which  has  no  basis  in 
fact.  The  truth  is,  that  there  are  many  evidences  in  the 
Gospel  that  the  picture,  ideal  as  it  is  in  the  form  in  which 
it  is  presented,  is  the  picture  of  a  real  person.  Such  a 
combination  of  exaltation  and  humility  as  was  referred  to 
in  a  previous  chapter 1  it  is  impossible  to  suppose  the  in- 
vention of  any  author.  Moreover  there  are  many  evidences 
that  the  writer  had  an  accurate  acquaintance,  over  and 
above  that  gained  from  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  not  simply 
with  the  manners  and  customs  of  the  people  of  Palestine, 
but  also  with  the  events  in  the  life  of  Jesus  himself.2  In 
the  light  of  these  facts  it  may  fairly  be  said  that  the  time  is 
past  when  the  fourth  Gospel  can  be  explained  as  a  mere 
piece  of  religious  fiction  from  the  pen  of  a  second-centuiy 
writer ;  but  on  the  other  hand  the  time  is  not  yet  come, 
and  possibly  may  never  come,  when  it  can  be  claimed  to 
be  either  an  absolutely  exact  picture  of  Jesus'  character, 
or  a  really  historical  account  of  his  ministry. 

1  See  above,  p.  489. 

2  Upon  this  whole  question,  see  P.  Ewald :  Das  ffauptproblem  der  Evanye? 
lienfrage,  S.  51  sq. 


THE   DEVELOPING  CHURCH  613 

Under  such  circumstances  it  would  seem  most  natural  to 
assume  that  the  Gospel,  like  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  was 
written  by  one  who  was  not  himself  a  personal  disciple  of 
Christ  and  an  eyewitness  of  the  events  which  he  records, 
but  was  possessed  of  sources  of  the  first  rank ;  so  that  his 
account  is  accurate  so  far  as  it  is  based  on  his  sources,  but 
unreliable  in  other  parts.  Wendt,  following  the  sugges- 
tion of  earlier  scholars,  has  attempted  to  prove  that  the 
author  used  an  authentic  and  trustworthy  Johannine  source 
containing  nearly  all  the  discourses,  but  covering  only  the 
closing  period  of  Jesus'  life,  which  he  spent  in  Jerusalem.1 
The  striking  dissimilarity  between  the  Synoptic  and  Johan- 
nine narratives,  and  their  respective  portraits  of  Christ, 
would  then  be  due  to  the  fact  that  the  author  of  the 
fourth  Gospel  distributed  the  material  contained  in  his 
source  over  the  entire  ministry  of  Christ,  and  thus  repre- 
sented him  as  teaching  and  acting  at  the  beginning  of  his 
career  and  during  his  Galilean  days,  as  he  actually  taught 
and  acted  only  during  the  closing  days  of  his  life  in  Jeru- 
salem, when  he  felt  that  the  time  had  come  to  emphasize 
and  impress  upon  his  followers  his  Messianic  character. 
This  theory  is  a  very  suggestive  one,  and  has  much  to 
recommend  it;  but  the  difficulty  is,  that  the  sharp  dis- 
tinction in  tendency  and  purpose  which  Wendt  draws  be- 
tween the  completed  Gospel  and  its  original  source,  and 
which  alone  justifies  such  a  division  as  he  makes,  is  largely 
imaginary.  Indeed,  the  work  as  we  have  it  is  too  homo- 
geneous, and  is  controlled  too  completely  by  a  single  spirit 
and  purpose,  to  give  to  any  such  attempt  as  Wendt's  much 
hope  of  success.  If  the  author  used  sources,  he  handled 
them  in  so  sovereign  a  way  that  it  is  simply  impossible 
to  separate  them  from  the  work  as  a  whole.  What  he 
really  had  was  the  vivid  picture  of  an  actual,  living  per- 
sonality ;  and  with  an  accurate  knowledge  of  the  people, 
the  customs,  and  the  scenes  among  which  Jesus  lived,  and 
with  more  or  less  extensive  information  as  to  the  events 
of  his  life,  he  composed  a  Gospel  which  was  not  in  any 
sense  a  compilation,  but  which  was  an  attempt  to  portray 

i  See  Wendt:  Lehre  Jesit,  I.  S.  215  sq. 


614  THE   APOSTOLIC    AGE 

that  personality  in  living  form  as  he  saw  him  in  his  own 
mind,  and  to  give  the  portrait  such  an  historical  framework 
as  his  knowledge  enabled  him  to  supply. 

The  question  is,  can  such  a  Gospel  have  been  written 
by  a  personal  disciple  of  Jesus,  —  by  the  apostle  John, 
to  whom  it  is  ascribed  by  tradition,  —  or  must  we  attribute 
it  to  a  Christian  of  the  second  or  third  generation  ?  Most 
of  the  considerations  commonly  urged  in  support  of  the 
former  alternative  fail  to  help  us  in  the  matter.  It  is  true 
that  there  are  traces  in  the  literature  of  the  second  century 
both  of  the  Gospel  itself  and  of  the  first  epistle,  which  com- 
pel us  to  push  them  back  at  least  as  far  as  the  early 
years  of  that  century.  But  to  assign  them  to  the  begin- 
ning of  the  second  century,  or  even  to  the  latter  part  of 
the  first,  is  not  necessarily  to  ascribe  them  to  the  apostle 
John  or  to  any  other  personal  disciple  of  Jesus.  It  is 
trua,  still  farther,  that  the  author  was  a  Jew.  He  shows 
himself  thoroughly  familiar  not  with  the  letter  of  the  Old 
Testament  merely,  but  with  its  spirit  as  well,  which  means 
of  course  much  more.  His  style  is  that  of  a  man  whose 
native  tongue  was  Hebrew,  not  Greek;  and  his  acquaint- 
ance with  Palestinian  localities,  manners,  and  customs  is 
so  intimate  and  accurate  that  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
he  was  a  native  of  the  Holy  Land  or  had,  at  any  rate,  re- 
sided there  for  a  long  period.  We  get  more  material  for 
a  knowledge  of  contemporary  Palestinian  Judaism  from 
the  Gospel  of  John  than  from  all  the  other  Gospels  com- 
bined. But  there  is  no  guarantee  of  apostolic  authorship 
in  all  this.  Nor  can  the  fact  that  the  author  was  unde- 
niably possessed  of  a  large  amount  of  trustworthy  infor- 
mation, over  and  above  that  derived  from  the  Synoptic 
Gospels,  be  made  to  prove  that  he  was  a  personal  disciple 
of  Jesus.  Even  the  many  vivid  and  minute  details  scat- 
tered through  his  work  may  be  fully  accounted  for  if  he 
gained  his  information  from  an  eyewitness  of  the  events, 
as  Mark,  for  example,  gained  his.  Moreover,  the  author's 
evident  interest  in  John,  which  is  manifested  in  many 
ways,  notably  by  his  uniform  designation  of  him  as  "  the 
disciple  whom  Jesus  loved,"  and  the  testimony  of  the 


THE  DEVELOPING   CHURCH  615 

appendix  of  the  Gospel,1  which  emanated  from  the  same 
circle,  prove  no  more  than  that  John  was  held  in  peculiar 
honor  where  the  work  was  written,  and  that  he  was  the 
author's  chief  authority.  The  same  is  true  also  of  the 
tradition  for  Johannine  authorship  upon  which  so  much 
stress  is  commonly  laid.  The  tradition,  though  not  abso- 
lutely unanimous,2  is  certainly  very  strong.  The  Johan- 
nine authorship  is  testified  to,  toward  the  close  of  the 
second  century,  by  Theophilus  of  Antioch,  by  the  Mura- 
torian  Fragment,  which  belongs  probably  to  Rome,  and  by 
Irenaeus  of  Lyons.  The  last  named  was  a  pupil  of  Poly- 
carp,  who  was  himself  in  turn  a  pupil  of  John,  so  that  his 
opportunities  for  knowing  the  truth  were  excellent.  At 
the  same  time,  the  fact  that  both  the  Apocalypse  and  the 
Gospel,  which  were  certainly  not  written  by  the  same 
hand,  are  ascribed  by  Irenseus  to  the  apostle  John,  throws 
some  suspicion  upon  the  accuracy  of  his  statement  in  re- 
gard to  the  Gospel.  And  the  fact  must  in  any  case  be  rec- 
ognized that  the  tradition  might  have  arisen  even  if  John 
was  only  indirectly  connected  with  the  production  of  the 
Gospel ;  if,  in  other  words,  it  was  composed  by  one  of  his 
disciples  or  companions  who  had  gained  much  of  his  mate- 
rial from  John  himself,  and  whose  work  was  written  in  the 
spirit  of  John  and  represented  his  type  of  teaching.  The 
Logia  of  Matthew  gave  his  name  to  the  Greek  Gospel  in 
which  they  were  so  largely  incorporated,  and  in  the  same 
way  the  name  of  John  may  have  become  attached  at  an 
early  date  to  a  Gospel  for  which  he  was  indirectly  respon- 
sible. More  than  this,  the  tradition,  strong  though  it  is, 
does  not  permit  us  to  assert  with  confidence.  Only  one 
fact,  indeed,  carries  us  beyond  the  general  conclusion  that 
the  author  was  in  some  way  connected  with  the  apostle 
John,  and  seems  to  make  direct  Johannine  authorship 

1  Cf.  John  xxi.  24.    Verse  23  of  the  same  chapter  seems  to  point  to  a  time 
when  John  was  already  dead,  and  when  the  necessity  was  consequently  felt 
of  explaining  the  apparent  assurance  of  Christ  that  he  would  live  until  the 
second  advent. 

2  The  sect  of  the  Alogi  in  the  middle  of  the  second  century  denied  that  the 
Gospel  was  written  by  John,  but  they  had  a  theological  bias  against  it,  and 
their  denial  must  therefore  be  discounted  to  some  extent. 


616  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

necessary.  In  John  i.  14,  and  also  in  the  opening  words  of 
the  First  Epistle  of  John,  which  was  certainly  written  by 
the  same  hand  as  the  Gospel,  the  author  himself  apparently 
claims  to  have  been  a  personal  disciple  of  Jesus  and  a  wit- 
ness of  the  events  which  he  records.1  The  former  passage 
has  little  weight,2  but  the  latter  can  be  reconciled  with  the 
assumption  that  the  author  was  any  one  else  than  John 
only  by  interpreting  it  in  a  spiritual  sense.  This  is  diffi- 
cult but  not  impossible,3  and  the  reasons  for  regarding 
the  Gospel  as  the  work  of  a  disciple  and  companion  of 
John  rather  than  of  the  apostle  himself  seem  too  strong 
to  be  resisted.  One  thing,  however,  may  fairly  be  in- 
sisted upon  as  a  result  of  the  painstaking  criticism  to 
which  the  Gospel  has  been  subjected  in  recent  years.  It 
contains  a  large  body  of  genuine  apostolic  matter  ;  and 
though  the  picture  of  Christ  is  one-sided,  its  several  feat- 
ures are  in  the  main  trustworthy,  and  though  the  dis- 
courses, in  the  form  in  which  we  have  them,  are  the 
composition  of  the  author,  they  embody  Christ's  genuine 
teaching,  at  least  to  some  extent.  So  much  we  can  be  sure 
of  even  though  we  ascribe  the  Gospel  to  a  disciple  of  John 
instead  of  to  John  himself,  and  more  than  this  it  is  impos- 
sible to  claim  even  if  we  ascribe  the  Gospel  to  John.  So 
that  the  question  of  authorship  is,  after  all,  of  no  great 
practical  importance.  We  must  use  the  work  in  any  case 
in  connection  with  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  and  must  inter- 
pret it  in  the  light  of  the  picture  of  Christ  portrayed  by 
them  ;  and  its  authorship  can  neither  increase  nor  dimmish 
our  confidence  in  it.  But  the  Gospel  of  John  alone  reveals 
fully  the  secret  of  Christ's  marvellous  power  in  his  pro- 
found God-consciousness,  and  it  is  this  that  gives  it  its 
permanent  historic  as  well  as  religious  value.  It  consti- 
tutes an  indispensable  supplement  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 
for  the  historian  who  would  know  not  simply  the  actual 
words  and  deeds  of  Jesus  and  the  course  of  his  daily  life, 

1  John  xiz.  35  and  xxi.  24,  which  are  often  said  to  involve  the  same  thing, 
prove  no  more  than  that  John  was  the  ultimate  authority  for  the  facts  recorded 
in  the  Gospel. 

2  The  "  we  "  need  not  include  the  author  himself. 
8  Compare  1  John  iii.  6  and  3  John  11. 


THE  DEVELOPING   CHTJRCH  617 

but  the  ultimate  basis  of  his  religious  ideas  and  ideals, 
and  thus  the  explanation  of  his  controlling  and  abiding 
influence. 

Of  the  three  epistles  ascribed  by  tradition  to  the  apostle 
John,  the  first  and  longest  is  certainly  by  the  same  author 
as  the  Gospel.  Both  literary  style  and  religious  concep- 
tions are  too  closely  related  to  permit  any  doubt  upon  this 
point.  The  epistle,  like  the  Gospel,  bears  no  name,  and  it 
is  therefore  not  a  pseudonymous  work  even  if  it  be  the 
production  of  some  one  else  than  John.  It  was  addressed 
to  a"  church  or  group  of  churches  whose  locality  is  not 
indicated,  but  its  connection  with  John  suggests  that  its 
readers  lived  in  the  province  of  Asia.1  The  epistle  was 
evidently  called  forth  by  the  existence  of  false  teachers, 
who  were  at  once  Docetists  and  libertines.  Their  error 
consisted,  on  the  one  hand,  in  the  denial  that  Jesus  was 
the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,2  and  on  the  other  hand,  in  the 
assertion  that  a  Christian  man  is  bound  by  no  law  and  that 
he  is  under  no  obligation  to  obey  God's  commands;  that  he 
is,  in  fact,  above  law,  and  that  no  sin  is  possible  to  him,  even 
though  he  live  in  utter  disregard  of  all  moral  precepts, 
whether  human  or  divine.3  In  this  denial  and  in  this  asser- 
tion, these  false  teachers  were  in  entire  accord  with  at  least 
some  of  the  Gnostic  sects  known  to  us.  The  Docetic  dis- 
tinction between  the  man  Jesus  and  the  higher  heavenly 
being  or  Christ  was  genuinely  Gnostic,  being  based  upon 
the  dualism  which  lay  at  the  root  of  all  the  Gnostic  sys- 
tem ;  while  the  antinomianism  that  marked  some  of  the 
Gnostic  sects  was  the  direct  result  of  the  teaching  of  Paul, 
who  made  so  much  of  the  believer's  freedom  from  external 
law,  and  whose  contrast  between  the  old  and  new  dispen- 
sations, and  between  the  flesh  and  the  spirit,  made  him  the 
great  apostle  of  the  Gnostics.4  It  is  this  Gnostic  combi- 
nation of  Docetism  and  antinomianism  against  which  our 
author  feels  it  necessary  to  warn  his  readers.  But  though 

1  It  is  maintained  by  some  scholars  that  the  work  is  a  discourse  rather  than 
an  epistle,  but  i.  4,  ii.  1,  12  sq.,  and  v.  13,  make  against  the  assumption. 

2  1  John  ii.  22,  iv.  2,  15,  etc. 

»  1  John  i.  8  sq. ;  ii.  3  sq.  29 ;  iii.  3  sq.,  etc. 
*  See  above,  p.  502  sq. 


618  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE 

he  insists  as  strenuously  as  some  other  writers  of  his  day  — 
for  instance,  Jude  and  the  interpolator  of  the  pastoral  epis- 
tles —  upon  the  importance  of  cleaving  to  the  old  faith 
which  was  received  in  the  beginning,1  he  does  not  content 
himself  as  they  do  with  simply  denouncing  and  condemn- 
ing the  false  teachers ;  on  the  contrary,  he  undertakes  to 
exhibit  over  against  them  the  true  Gospel,  or,  in  other 
words,  to  place  in  opposition  to  their  false  gnosis  the  true 
gnosis  which  alone  is  eternal  life.2  The  purpose  of  his 
epistle,  therefore,  is  primarily  not  negative,  but  positive; 
not  to  attack  error  merely,  but  to  impart  the  truth,  and  thus 
to  fortify  his  readers  against  all  the  assaults  of  false  teachers 
and  of  false  teaching.  The  Gospel,  or  the  true  gnosis, 
which  the  author  presents  in  his  epistle,  has  two  elements : 
the  one  ethical,  and  the  other  Christological.  He  empha- 
sizes not  only  right  living,  but  also  right  thinking ;  not  only 
the  necessity  of  obeying  God's  commands,  but  also  the 
necessity  of  believing  Jesus  Christ  to  be  the  Son  of  God. 
And  these,  moreover,  are  not  two  separate  and  independent 
elements,  placed  over  against  two  separate  and  independent 
errors;,  they  are  so  closely  bound  together  in  the  author's 
thought  that  one  cannot  be  detached  from  the  other.  A 
man  cannot  obey  God's  commands,  the  sum  of  which  is 
love,  unless  he  abides  in  God ;  and  he  cannot  abide  in  God 
unless  he  recognizes  Jesus  Christ  as  his  Son,  and  becomes 
one  with  him.3  Thus  righteous  living  is  conditioned  upon 
belief  in  Jesus  Christ  as  the  Son  of  God,  and  upon  oneness 
with  him,  in  true  Pauline  fashion.  It  is  this  theme  which 
controls  the  writer's  thought  throughout  his  epistle.  All 
that  he  says  bears  upon  it.  But  the  epistle  follows  no 
definite  and  logical  plan.  The  author  takes  up  first  one 
side  of  the  matter,  and  then  the  other;  then,  apparently 
with  the  feeling  that  he  has  not  said  enough,  he  takes 
them  up  again,  and  finally  a  third  time. 

The  similarity  between  the  epistle  and  the  Gospel  is  so 
great  that  it  is  safe  to  assume  that  not  many  years  sepa- 
rated them ;  and  yet  the  polemic  tone  of  the  epistle  con- 

1  1  John  ii.  7,  24,  iii.  11.  *  cf.  1  John  i.  1  sq.,  v.  20. 

»  Cf.  1  John  iii.  6  sq.,  iv.  15  sq. 


THE   DEVELOPING   CHURCH  619 

trasts  strongly  with  the  calm  and  even  tone  of  the  Gospel, 
and  makes  it  altogether  probable  that  the  two  were  written 
under  very  different  circumstances.  The  false  teachers 
whom  the  author  attacks  in  his  epistle  seem  not  to  have 
been  in  his  mind  when  he  wrote  the  Gospel,  and  it  may 
well  be  that  they  had  come  into  prominence  since  its  com- 
position, being  aroused  to  open  hostility  by  its  publication, 
—  especially  by  its  assertion  of  the  incarnation  of  the  Son 
of  God,  —  and  at  the  same  time  turning  to  their  own  use 
such  conceptions  in  it  as  were  in  line  with  their  own  ten- 
dencies. It  is  clear,  for  instance,  that  they  claimed  that, 
in  an  eminent  degree  and  in  contrast  with  other  Chris- 
tians, they  were  free  from  sin,1  were  walking  in  the  light,2 
were  acquainted  with  God  3  and  loved  him,4  were  in  close 
fellowship  with  him,5  were  abiding  in  him,6  and  possessed 
his  Spirit.7  The  importance  of  all  these  things  is  empha- 
sized over  and  over  again  in  the  fourth  Gospel.  And  so 
our  author  finds  it  necessary  to  deny  the  claims  of  the  men 
in  question,  pointing  out  that  their  refusal  to  believe  that 
Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God,  and  their  corruptness  and  lack  of 
brotherly  love,  prove  the  emptiness  of  their  claims.  The 
false  teachers  did  not  get  their  views  from  the  fourth 
Gospel.  They  doubtless  had  them  already ;  for  they  gained 
them,  as  the  author  of  our  epistle  gained  his,  largely  from 
Paul.8  But  they  found  in  the  Gospel  much  that  fell  in 
with  their  own  ideas,  and  they  appropriated  it  to  themselves. 
The  tremendous  impression  which  Paul  left  on  the  Chris- 
tianity of  Asia  Minor  is  made  very  manifest  by  the  fact 
that  two  so  widely  different  schools  as  those  represented 
on  the  one  hand  by  the  author  of  our  epistle  and  of  the 
fourth  Gospel,  and  on  the  other  hand  by  the  false  teachers 

UJohni.8.  8  Uohn  ii.  4.  5  Uohn  i.  6.  7  1  John  iv.  1  sq. 

2  1  John  ii.  10.  «  1  John  iv.  20.         «  1  John  ii.  6. 

8  It  is  interesting  to  notice  in  this  connection  that  our  author  exhibits 
the  same  sort  of  rigorous  superiority  to  observed  facts  that  is  exhibited  by 
Paul  himself.  In  one  part  of  his  epistle,  to  be  sure,  he  asserts  that  no  man  is 
without  sin  (i.  8  sq.);  but  in  other  passages  he  declares  unequivocally,  and  in 
genuine  Pauline  fashion,  that  the  man  who  is  begotten  of  God  cannot  sin  (iii. 
»5.  !»,  v.  18)  :  and  the  same  kind  of  reliance  upon  theory  over  against  the  testi- 
mony of  appearances  is  seen  in  v.  15,  where  the  author  says,  "  If  we  know  that 
he  heareth  us,  whatsoever  we  ask,  we  know  that  we  have  the  petitions  which 
we  have  asked  of  him." 


620  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

whom  he  combats,  should  both  have  adopted  certain  of  his 
fundamental  conceptions,  and  based  their  divergent  sys- 
tems thereupon.1 

The  two  brief  epistles,  known  as  Second  and  Third 
John,  were  written  by  one  hand  and  at  about  the  same 
time.  Whether  they,  too,  are  by  the  author  of  the  Gospel 
and  of  the  First  Epistle  of  John  is  not  certain.  The  use 
of  the  term  "  elder  "  in  the  opening  salutation  is  against 
the  identification,  as  are  also  certain  differences  in  style. 
But  on  the  other  hand  there  are  striking  resemblances 
both  in  thought  and  in  language,  which  naturally  suggest, 
and  indeed  make  it  quite  probable,  that  the  author  was  the 
same  in  both  cases.  Tradition  does  not  help  us  in  the 
matter,  for  it  begins  very  late,  and  even  then  is  not  unani- 
mous. Some  of  the  fathers  ascribe  the  letters  to  the 
apostle  John,  others  to  John  the  presbyter,  others  are  in 
doubt  as  to  their  authorship.  But,  at  any  rate,  even  if 
not  identical  with  the  author  of  the  first  epistle,  the  writer 
of  the  two  short  epistles  must  have  belonged  to  the  same 
school  and  breathed  the  same  atmosphere,  and  must  have 
been  familiar  with  the  Johannine  literature. 

One  of  the  epistles  is  addressed  to  some  church,  prob- 
ably in  the  province  of  Asia,  which  the  author  designates 
by  the  figurative  expression  "  elect  lady  " ; 2  the  other  to 
a  member  of  the  same  church,  Gaius  by  name.3  The 
author's  purpose  in  writing  to  the  church  was  to  warn  his 
readers  to  have  nothing  to  do  with  certain  false  teachers 
who  were  travelling  about,  and  who,  he  feared,  might  be 
received  by  his  readers  and  lead  them  astray.  They  seem, 
in  fact,  already  to  have  found  a  welcome  from  some  in  the 
church,  and  to  have  gained  adherents  among  them.4  There 

1  In  the  light  of  this  fact  it  will  hardly  do  to  assume  with  Weizsacker  (I.e. 
8.  47G  sq.,  Eng.  Trans.,  II.  p.  16  sq.)  that  the  church  of  Ephesus  which  Paul 
planted  was  practically  destroyed  after  his  departure  from  the  city,  and  that 
the  church  of  the  latter  part  of  the  century  was  to  all  intents  and  purposes  a 
new  foundation.    In  spite  of  the  opposition  which  Paul  had  to  encounter,  and 
of  the  hostility  that  continued  to  manifest  itself  after  he  had  left,  his  influence 
was  more  deep  and   lasting  there  than  in  any  other  part  of  Christendom. 
See  above,  p.  487  sq.,  where  the  Paulinism  of  John,  of  Ignatius,  and  of  the 
Gnostics  and  other  sectaries  is  exhibited. 

2  2  John  1.  «  3  John  1.  *  Cf.  3  John  9  sq. 


THE  DEVELOPING  CHURCH  621 

was  therefore  special  reason  for  the  author  to  denounce 
them  and  to  warn  his  readers  against  them.  The  heresy 
of  which  they  were  guilty  seems  to  have  been  the  same  as 
that  attacked  in  1  John,  involving  both  Docetism  and  anti- 
nomianism. 

The  author's  purpose  in  writing  to  Gaius,  a  member 
of  the  church  addressed  in  2  John,  was  to  introduce 
and  commend  to  him  the  brethren  who  carried  the  latter 
epistle.  His  hospitality  is  highly  commended,  and  he  is 
exhorted  to  welcome  them,  in  accordance  with  his  well- 
known  custom,  and  to  set  them  forward  on  their  journey. 
The  brethren,  thus  referred  to,  were  evidently  travelling 
evangelists  who  went  from  place  to  place  preaching  the 
word.  The  author  improved  the  opportunity  at  the  same 
time  to  beg  Gaius  not  to  imitate  the  example  of  Diotre- 
phes,  a  prominent  if  not  the  chief  official  in  the  church,1 
who  was  hostile  to  the  writer  and  received  kindly  neither 
himself  nor  his  messengers.  Apparently  Diotrephes  was 
inclined  to  favor  the  false  teachers  who  are  denounced  in 
the  other  epistle.  Thus,  though  the  letters  are  so  brief, 
they  give  us  an  interesting  glimpse  of  the  life  of  an  early 
church,  and  reveal  one  of  the  means  by  which  the  unity  of 
Christendom  was  preserved,  and  a  uniform  development 
secured,  even  in  the  midst  of  the  widest  diversity  of  local 
conditions  and  tendencies.  But  of  this  it  will  be  necessary 
to  say  more  later. 

The  Apocalypse,  the  last  of  the  five  works  ascribed 
by  tradition  to  the  apostle  John,  is  the  only  one  of  the 
five  that  bears  the  name  of  John.  Justin  Martyr  ex- 
pressly identifies  the  author  with  the  apostle,2  and  no 
one  seems  to  have  questioned  the  identification  except  the 
sect  of  the  Alogi,  until  toward  the  close  of  the  third  cen- 
tury, when  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  to  whom  the  chili- 
asm  of  the  book  was  offensive,  expressed  doubts  as  to  its 
apostolic  origin.  His  dtoubts  were  echoed  by  Eusebius, 
who  reports  that  many  in  his  day  ascribed  the  work  to  the 
presbyter  John,  of  whose  existence  we  learn  from  Papias.3 
Eusebius  consequently  put  the  work  among  the  antilegom- 

i  3  John  9.  2  justin .  Diai  81.  a  See  below,  p.  623. 


622  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

ena,1  and  it  was  long  before  it  acquired  an  unquestioned 
place  within  the  canon.  Qne  thing,  at  any  rate,  is  entirely 
certain,  and  that  is  that  the  author  of  the  Apocalypse  was 
not  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel.  The  few  superficial 
parallels  that  can  be  pointed  out  between  the  two  works 2 
count  for  nothing  over  against  the  total  difference  in  their 
style,  and  especially  in  their  conception  of  Christianity. 
There  is  absolutely  nothing  in  the  Apocalypse  of  that  pro- 
found mysticism  which  is  fundamental  both  in  the  Gospel 
and  in  the  First  Epistle  of  John,  and  in  spite  of  the 
author's  emphasis  upon  the  death  and  the  pre-existence  of 
Christ,  his  standpoint  is  essentially  the  standpoint  of  the 
primitive  church  at  large. 

Whether  the  writer  of  the  Apocalypse  was  the  apostle 
John  is  another  question.  If  the  apostle  John  was  the 
author  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  he  cannot  have  written 
the  Apocalypse.  But  even  if  he  was  not  the  author  of 
the  fourth  Gospel  there  are  strong  grounds  for  assuming, 
as  has  been  already  seen,  that  that  work  proceeded  from  a 
circle  in  which  he  was  the  leading  figure,  and  that  it  bears 
the  stamp  of  his  teaching,  and  represents  with  more  or  less 
accuracy  his  controlling  conception  of  Christianity.  But 
if  that  be  so,  it  is  almost  as  difficult  as  in  the  other  case  to 
regard  the  Apocalypse  as  his  work,  for  it  represents  in  the 
main  an  entirely  different  type  of  thought.  It  is  to  be  noticed 
that  the  author  does  not  himself  claim  to  be  an  apostle,  and 
his  work  contains  no  hint  that  the  one  whom  he  saw  in 
his  vision  was  the  beloved  Master  upon  whose  bosom  he 
had  leaned  and  with  whom  he  had  been  so  intimately  asso- 
ciated during  the  whole  period  of  his  earthly  ministry.3 

1  Ensebius :  H.  E.  III.  25. 

2  For  instance,  the  frequent  characterization  of  Christ  as  the  Lamb  of  God, 
a  phrase  which  is  used  of  him  in  John  i.  29,  36 ;  and  the  occurrence  of  the  term 
"  Logos  "  in  Rev.  xix.  13.    So  far  as  the  latter  is  concerned,  there  is  no  trace  in 
the  entire  work  of  the  Logos  conception  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  and  in  the  pas- 
sage referred  to  there  is  no  ground  for  identifying  the  phrase  X67os  rov  0eou, 
which  is  due  to  a  mere  personification  of  the  revelation  given  through  Christ 
(Rev.  i.  2),  with  the  technical  term  X67os  employed  in  John  i.  1  sq. 

8  This  fact  makes  not  only  against  the  ascription  of  the  work  to  the  apostle 
John,  but  also  against  its  pseudonymity.  There  is  no  sign,  indeed,  that  the 
author  wished  his  work  to  pass  as  the  work  of  the  apostle  John,  or  of  anyone 
else  than  himself. 


THE  DEVELOPING  CHURCH  62S 

It  is  a  mistake,  moreover,  to  assume  that  the  author 
claims  or  must  have  possessed  any  special  authority  over 
the  seven  churches  to  which  he  writes.  He  speaks  simply 
as  a  Christian  prophet,  and  what  he  says  demands  belief 
and  attention  not  because  it  is  his  own  word,  but  because 
it  is  the  word  of  God  revealed  to  him,  just  as  that  word 
was  supposed  in  his  day  to  be  revealed  to  Christian  proph- 
ets everywhere.  Any  Christian  who  was  recognized  as 
a  prophet  in  the  churches  addressed,  and  who  commanded 
the  respect  and  confidence  of  his  brethren,  might  have 
written  the  Apocalypse.  (All  that  we  can  certainly  say, 
then,  about  the  author  is  that  he  was  a  Christian  prophet 
of  Jewish  birth,1  but  of  universalistic  principles,2  whose 
name  was  John  and  who  resided  in  Asia  ;iand  that  he  was 
thoroughly  familiar  with  the  conditions  of  all  the  churches 
addressed,  and  thoroughly  at  home  among  them.  An  early 
tradition  knows  of  a  certain  presbyter  John  who  lived  in 
Asia  during  the  latter  part  of  the  first  century,3  and  to  him 
the  Apocalypse  is  ascribed  by  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,4 

1  The  Hebraistic  style  of  the  work  is  alone  sufficient  to  prove  him  a  Jew ; 
and  his  conceptions  bear  throughout  a  genuinely  Jewish  character. 

2  The  author  evidently  made  use  of  Jewish  or  Jewish  Christian  sources  in 
which  the  national  particularism  had  considerable  play  (cf.,  e,g.,  vii.  4  sq., 
xxi.  12) ;  but  he  himself  was  thoroughly  in  sympathy  with  the  church  at  large 
in  its  recognition  of  the  salvation  of  uncircumcised  Gentiles,  and  he  evidently 
never  thought  of  the  Jewish  ceremonial  law  as  binding  upon  any  Christian 
(cf.  v.  9,  vii.  9sq.). 

3  The  presbyter  John  is  mentioned  by  Papias  in  a  passage  quoted  by  Euse- 
bius:   H.  E.  III.  39,  4.     Irenseus  failed  to  distinguish  him  from  the  apostle 
John,  and  supposed  consequently  that  Papias  was  a  hearer  of  the  latter,  and 
many  modern  scholars  agree  with  Irenseus.     See,  for  instance,  Salmon's  arti- 
cle Joannes  the  Presbyter  in  the  Dictionary  of  Christian  Biography.    But 
Eusebius  saw  that  Papias  was  referring  in  the  passage  in  question  to  another 
John,  and  he  therefore  concluded  quite  rightly  that  Papias  was  a  hearer  of 
the  latter  and  not  of  the  apostle.    We  have  no  other  information  about  this 
presbyter  John.    He  was  confounded  at  an  early  day  with  the  apostle,  and 
his  memory  seems  to  have  perished  entirely.    But  there  is  no  reason  for  doubt- 
ing his  existence,  as  some  scholars  do.    That  two  Johns  were  buried  at  Ephe- 
sus  is  said  by  Dionysius  of  Alexandria   (in  Eusebius:   H.  E.  VII.  25),  by 
Eusebius  himself  (//.  E.  III.  39),  and  by  Jerome  (De  vir.  ill.  9).    Not  much 
weight  can  be  attached  to  the  report,  but  so  far  as  it  goes  it  tends  to  con- 
firm the  separate  existence  of  the  presbyter  John. 

4  Dionysius,  quoted  by  Eusebius :  H.  E.  VII.  25,  does  not  say  that  the  Apoca- 
lypse was  written  by  the  "presbyter  John,"  but  only  by  another  John  than 
the  apostle ;   and  he  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  there  were  two  tonibj  ia 
Ephesus  bearing  the  name  of  John. 


624  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

by  Eusebius,1  and  by  many  modern  scholars.  We  know 
so  little  about  this  presbyter  John  that  it  is  impossible 
either  to  prove  or  to  disprove  his  identity  with  the  author 
of  the  Apocalypse ;  but  if  John  the  apostle  was  not  its 
author,  it  is  altogether  probable  that  John  the  presbyter 
was,  for  otherwise  we  should  have  to  assume  that  still  a 
third  influential  man  of  the  same  name  lived  and  labored 
'in  Asia  at  the  same  time  with  the  apostle  and  presbyter. 
This  of  course  is  not  impossible,  for  the  name  was  a  very 
common  one  among  the  Jews  ;  but  it  is  hardly  likely.  Of 
the  date  and  general  character  of  the  Apocalypse,  and  of 
the  circumstances  which  called  it  forth,  I  shall  speak  a 
little  later  in  connection  with  the  subject  of  persecution. 
The  writings  which  we  have  been  considering  throw 
considerable  light  upon  the  conditions  that  existed  in  the 
churches  of  Asia  Minor  during  the  closing  years  of  the 
first  century.  The  picture  of  an  unknown  church  which 
is  contained  in  the  second  and  third  epistles  of  John,  has 
already  been  referred  to.  The  first  epistle,  as  has  been 
seen,  reveals  the  prevalence  of  a  heresy  which  was  at  once 
antinomian  and  Docetic,  and  we  know  from  the  letters  of 
Ignatius,  and  from  other  later  sources,  that  the  Gnostics,  to 
whom  the  false  teachers  attacked  in  1  John  were  closely 
related,  had  large  influence  throughout  Asia  Minor  in  the 
second  century.  From  the  seven  epistles  contained  in  the 
second  and  third  chapters  of  the  Apocalypse,  we  get  a 
peculiarly  interesting  and  vivid  glimpse  of  the  diverse 
conditions  that  existed  in  seven  specified  churches,  and 
our  knowledge  of  the  general  course  of  development  in 
Christendom  at  large  is  greatly  enhanced  thereby.  That 
the  author  of  the  Apocalypse  addressed  only  seven 
churches,  when  there  were  doubtless  many  others  in  the 
province,  was  due  simply  to  his  love  of  symbolism.  The 
sacred  number  seven  was  a  favorite  one  with  him  and  con- 
trolled to  a  large  degree  the  composition  of  his  book. 
Undoubtedly  he  chose  the  seven  churches  he  did,  either 
because  they  were  the  most  prominent  in  the  province  or 

1  Eusebius:  H.  E.  III.  39,  6.    See  my  edition  of  Eusebius,  uote  in  loc.,  and 
also  III.  24,  note  20. 


THE   DEVELOPING   CHURCH  625 

because  their  needs  were  greatest.  The  truth  is  that  in 
all  but  two  of  them  he  found  much  to  criticise.  Only  the 
churches  of  Smyrna  and  of  Philadelphia  receive  undivided 
commendation,  and  even  they  appear  to  have  been  far 
from  strong.1  In  both  cities,  moreover,  the  Jews  were 
evidently  exceedingly  hostile,  and  were  making  the 
Christians  considerable  trouble ;  for  the  author  denounces 
them  sharply,  and  characterizes  them  as  a  synagogue  of 
Satan.2 

The  church  of  Laodicea  receives  the  most  unsparing  con- 
demnation. It  was  apparently  prosperous  from  a  worldly 
point  of  view,  but  its  prosperity  had  resulted  in  a  lack  of 
spiritual  earnestness  and  consecration  which  the  author 
severely  rebukes.  In  Sardis  the  state  of  affairs  seems  to 
have  been  almost  as  bad  as  in  Laodicea.  The  writer 
even  speaks  of  the  church  as  dead,  but  at  the  same  time 
he  declares  that  there  are  some  of  its  members  who  have 
not  defiled  their  garments,  and  are  worthy  of  commenda- 
tion. In  Ephesus,  Pergamum,  and  Thyatira  the  condition 
of  things  was  more  complicated.  The  most  prominent 
factor  in  the  situation  was  the  presence  of  certain  antino- 
mian  teachers  who  were  leading  some  of  the  disciples 
astray,  and  whom  the  author  found  it  necessary  to  con- 
demn in  strong  terms  and  to  warn  his  readers  against. 
These  Nicolaitans  and  Balaamites  were  evidently  akin  to 
the  libertines  who  are  denounced  in  other  New  Testa- 
ment epistles,  but  it  is  worthy  of  note  that  there  is  no  hint 
that  they  were  also  Docetic  in  their  views,  as  were  the 
false  teachers  attacked  in  the  epistles  of  John  and  Igna- 
tius. Their  error  seems  to  have  been  only  practical. 
They  very  likely  found  a  warrant  for  their  libertinism  in 
the  principles  of  Paul,  though  there  «is  no  reason  to  sup- 
pose that  our  author  had  Paul  or  his  teachings  in  mind 

1  Rev.  ii.  9,  iii.  8.    It  is  interesting  to  notice  in  this  connection  that  Ignatius 
in  writing  to  the  church  of  Philadelphia  a  few  years  later  found  it  necessary 
to  warn  his  readers  against  those  who  preached  Judaism  (chap.  (5)  •    Appar- 
ently the  Jews  were  still  prominent  there,  and  were  attempting  to  secure  con- 
verts among  the  Christians.    In  Smyrna  they  seem  to  have  heen  doing  no  harm 
when  Ignatius  wrote,  for  he  says  nothing  about  them  in  his  Epistle  to  the 
Bmyrnaeans. 

2  Rev.  ii.  9,  iii.  9. 

2s 


626  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

in  writing  to  them.1  In  fact,  though  Paul's  principle 
touching  the  freedom  of  believers  from  all  objective  law 
•was  not  generally  accepted,  there  was  no  disposition  on 
the  part  of  the  church  at  large  to  denounce  him,  or  to 
declare  its  disagreement  with  him,  for  the  simple  reason 
that  his  principle  was  not  generally  understood,  and  it 
was  commonly  believed  that  he  was  as  true  a  supporter 
of  the  Christian  law  as  anybody  else.  And  in  this  the 
church  was  right  so  far  as  the  practical  question  was  con- 
cerned ;  for  Paul  was  as  bitterly  opposed  to  libertinism 
and  licentiousness  as  any  of  his  brethren,  and  was  heartily 
at  one  with  the  author  of  the  Apocalypse  in  condemn- 
ing everything  that  savored  of  looseness  or  laxity  in 
morals.2 

In  Ephesus  the  disciples  had  already  repudiated  the  false 
apostles  and  the  teachings  of  the  Nicolaitans,  and  the  only 
thing  which  the  author  ha~d  against  them  was  that  their 
original  love  had  grown  cold.  Possibly  the  writer  himself 
was  at  home  in  Ephesus,  and  his  presence  may  have  had 
something  to  do  with  their  rejection  of  false  teachers;  but 
their  zeal  against  heresy  may  also  have  had  something  to 
do  with  their  growing  coldness  in  Christian  love  and 
their  neglect  of  the  practical  duties  of  the  Christian  life. 
In  Pergamum  the  false  teachings  of  the  Nicolaitans  seem 
to  have  found  some  acceptance  within  the  church,  and  in 
Thyatira  there  were  apparently  many  who  had  been  led 
astray.  Conditions  in  the  latter  place  were,  in  fact,  the 
reverse  of  those  in  Ephesus.  Love  and  devotion  to  the 
practical  duties  of  the  Christian  life  were  on  the  increase 
among  the  disciples  of  Thyatira,  while  their  attitude 
toward  the  false  teachers  was  not  all  that  could  be  desired. 
There  seems  to  have  been  in  the  city  a  heathen  prophetess, 
to  whom  the  author,  with  evident  reference  to  the  notori- 
ous wife  of  the  Israelitish  king  Ahab,  gives  the  name 

1  It  is  entirely  unwarranted  to  find  in  the  false  apostles  of  Rev.  ii.  2,  a  ref- 
erence to  Paul,  for  the  author  was  evidently  referring  to  recent  events ;  but 
Paul  had  not  been  in  Ephesus  for  more  than  thirty  years. 

2  Irenaeus,  followed  by  other  fathers,  connects  the  Nicolaitans  mentioned  in 
Rev.  ii.  6,  15,  with  Nicolas,  one  of  the  seven  who  were  appointed  to  take  charge 
of  the  charities  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem.    But  there  is  no  ground  for  such  a 
connection.    Cf.  Eusebius:  H.  E.  III.  29,  and  my  notes  in  loc. 


THE   DEVELOPING    CHURCH  627 

Jezebel.     She  was  apparently  wielding  considerable  influ- 
ence, and  was  leading  even  some  Christians  astray.1 

The  picture  of  the  conditions  that  prevailed  in  the  seven 
churches  is  thus  a  variegated  one,  but  it  is  exceedingly  in- 
teresting on  that  very  account.  It  shows  clearly  the  many 
difficulties,  both  external  and  internal,  with  which  Chris- 
tianity had  to  contend  in  its  early  days.  From  without 
not  only  hostility  and  persecution,  but  also  the  seductive 
and  insidious  influence  of  Jewish  and  heathen  principles 
and  practices ;  from  within  coldness  and  indifference,  un- 
sound thinking  and  corrupt  living.  It  is  not  to  be  won- 
dered at  that  as  time  passed  the  need  of  organization 
should  be  increasingly  felt,  and  that  tried  and  true  men 
should  be  more  and  more  looked  to  to  control  the  destinies 
of  the  churches  and  to  guard  them  from  the  growing  dan- 
gers. But  of  this  it  will  be  necessary  to  speak  more  par- 
ticularly in  another  connection. 

*• 

4.   THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  EMPIRE 

The  apostle  Paul  came  into  frequent  contact  with  the 
authorities  of  the  Roman  Empire  during  his  great  mission- 
ary campaigns,  but  in  every  instance  he  found  in  them, 
according  to  the  Book  of  Acts,  a  protecting  and  not  an 
attacking  power.  And  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the 
representation  of  that  book  is  in  this  respect  quite  true, 
at  least  for  the  period  preceding  his  Roman  captivity. 
That  he  was  finally  executed  as  a  criminal  was  due  not 
to  the  fact  that  he  was  a  Christian,  but  to  the  fact  that  he 
was  a  disturber  of  the  public  peace,  and  his  condemnation 
had  no  effect  upon  the  status  of  his  Christian  brethren. 
They  were  not  participants  in  his  crime,  and  no  obloquy  or 
suspicion  attached  to  them  because  of  it.  For  some  years 
after  his  death  the  church  seems  to  have  gone  quietly  on 
its  way  without  attracting  the  attention  of  the  authorities 
and  without  suffering  any  molestation  from  them.  Matters 
might  have  gone  on  thus  for  years  longer,  had  it  not  been 

1  See  Sc'hiirer's  essay:   Die  Prophet  in  Isabel  in  Thyatira,  in  the  Theolo- 
C,  vo?i  Weizsacker  geroidmet,  S.  37  sq. 


628  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

for  the  great  conflagration  which  swept  away  a  considerable 
part  of  Rome  in  the  summer  of  64,  and  which  brought  upon 
the  Christians  of  that  city  the  terrible  baptism  of  blood 
known  as  the  persecution  of  Nero.1  The  term  is  a  some- 
what misleading  one,  for  it  seems  to  imply  that  Nero  was 
an  enemy  of  the  Christian  religion,  and  that  he  undertook 
to  exterminate  it  or  to  check  its  growth,  as  some  of  his 
successors  did.  But  the  truth  is  that  he  did  nothing  of 
the  sort.  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  the  statement  of 
Tacitus,2  that  he  inflicted  tortures  and  death  upon  the 
Christians  of  Rome  simply  in  order  to  relieve  himself  from 
the  suspicion  of  being  the  author  of  the  conflagration  and 
to  turn  the  rage  of  the  people  upon  another  object.  That 
the  Christians  should  have  been  thus  selected  as  the  scape- 
goats was  not  in  the  least  strange.  The  emperor  was  en- 
tirely under  the  influence  of  his  wife,  Poppsea,  who  was  a 
Jewish  proselyte,  and  it  is  quite  possible  that  his  attention 
was  called  to  the  Christians  by  her.  Once  brought  to  his 
notice,  their  notorious  lack  of  patriotism,  their  reputed 
atheism,  their  unsociability,  their  alleged  devotion  to  the 
black  arts,  and  their  general  unpopularity  might  well  lead 
him  to  see  in  them  the  best  possible  persons  to  accuse  of 
the  crime  which  he  had  himself  committed.  It  may  be  that 
the  trial  and  conviction  of  Paul  had  already  acquainted 
him  with  the  existence  of  the  Christians,  and  that  he  was 
all  the  more  ready  when  the  emergency  arose  to  make  such 
use  of  them.  It  would  seem  from  the  account  of  Tacitus 
and  the  somewhat  ambiguous  words  of  Suetonius,3  that  the 
majority  of  the  Christians  were  not  punished  for  the  actual 
crime  of  incendiarism,  —  which  Tacitus  says  could  not  be 
proved  against  them,  —  but  were  put  to  death  as  enemies 
of  society  and  as  dangerous  characters,  whose  principles 
and  practices  were  such  as  to  imperil  the  welfare  of  the 
people  and  of  the  state.  In  the  exercise  of  his  extraordi- 
nary police  jurisdiction,  the  emperor  had  the  right  to  pro- 
ceed against  such  persons,  as  against  brigands  and  pirates, 

1  Upon  the  Neronian  persecution, see  Arnold:   Die  neronische  Christenver- 
folannfi,  and  especially  Ramsay:  Church  in  the  Roman  Empire,  p.  226  s<^ 

2  Annals,  XV.  44.  »  Suetonius,;  Nero,  X6, 


THE  DEVELOPING   CHURCH  629 

without  recourse  to  the  courts  or  to  the  regular  legal 
forms  of  criminal  procedure.1  What  began,  therefore, 
simply  as  an  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  emperor  to  throw 
the  blame  of  the  great  conflagration  upon  the  disciples, 
eventuated,  when  the  charge  against  them  could  not  be 
proved,  in  a  wholesale  attack  upon  them  as  dangerous 
characters,  whose  destruction  was  demanded  by  the  good 
of  the  community  at  large  ;  and  the  attack  doubtless  came 
to  an  end  only  when  the  emperor  tired  of  the  executions, 
and  according  to  Tacitus  not  until  the  people's  hatred  for 
the  Christians  had  been  turned  into  pity  by  the  awful  suf- 
ferings to  which  they  were  subjected. 

The  inhumanity  and  brutality  which  attended  their  exe- 
cution almost  pass  belief.  According  to  Tacitus,  "  They 
were  also  made  the  subjects  of  sport  in  their  death,  for 
they  were  covered  with  the  hides  of  wild  beasts  and  wor- 
ried to  death  by  dogs,  or  nailed  to  crosses,  or  set  fire  to, 
and  when  day  declined  they  were  burned  to  serve  as  noc- 
turnal lights."  It  is  doubtless  to  the  same  occasion 
that  Clement  refers  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians 
in  the  words,  "  To  these  men  .  .  .  there  is  to  be  added  a 
great  multitude  of  the  elect,  who,  having  through  envy 
endured  many  indignities  and  tortures,  furnished  us  with 
a  most  excellent  example.  Through  envy  those  women, 
the  Danaides  and  Dircse,  being  persecuted,  after  they  had 
suffered  terrible  and  unspeakable  torments,  finished  the 
course  of  their  faith  with  steadfastness,  and  though  weak 
in  body  received  a  glorious  reward/' 2  It  is  not  to  be  won- 
dered at  that  the  people  of  Rome,  little  as  they  might 
care  for  the  victims  (who  were  evidently  from  the  lowest 
classes  of  society,  or  the  emperor  would  not  have  dared  to 
treat  them  thus),  and  heartily  as  they  might  despise  them 
for  their  foolish  delusion,  should  feel  that  they  were  pun- 
ished less  to  satisfy  justice  than  to  satiate  the  bloodthirsti- 
ness  of  Nero,  and  that  their  hatred  and  contempt  should 
ultimately  give  way  to  compassion. 

1  See  Mommsen  in  the  Historische  Zeitschrift,  1890,  S.  490  sq. ;  and  Hardy : 
Christianity  and  the  Roman  Government,  p.  101, 

2  Clement :  Ad  Cor.  6. 


630  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  massacre  ex- 
tended beyond  the  confines  of  Rome,  or  that  any  law  was 
passed  or  edict  issued  making  the  profession  of  Chris- 
tianity a  crime,  or  placing  the  Christian  society  under  the 
ban  of  the  empire.  But  it  was  to  be  expected  that  the 
emperor's  action  should  be  widely  known,  and  that  provin- 
cial governors  should  feel  at  liberty,  in  the  exercise  of  their 
extraordinary  police  jurisdiction,  to  follow  his  example  in 
treating  the  Christians  as  outlaws  and  criminals  whenever 
their  own  inclination  or  the  hatred  of  the  populace  sug- 
gested such  a  course.  The  Christians,  therefore,  were 
thenceforth  in  a  precarious  condition,  liable  at  any  time  to 
be  held  responsible  for  local  or  national  disaster,  and  to  be 
sacrificed  to  popular  prejudice  and  passion,  or  to  be  made 
the  victims  either  of  religious  and  patriotic  zeal,  or  of 
petty  jealousy  and  spite. 

Of  their  actual  condition  in  Rome  and  elsewhere,  during 
the  years  succeeding  Nero's  attack  upon  them,  we  have 
no  explicit  information,  though  there  are  possible  hints 
of  outbreaks  against  them  under  Vespasian  and  Titus.1 
But  the  emperor  Domitian  was  avowedly  hostile  to  them 
as  well  as  to  the  Jews,  and  they  suffered  considerably  dur- 
ing his  reign  both  in  Rome  and  in  the  East.  Domitiaii's 
enmity,  both  to  Christians  and  to  Jews,  seems  to  have  been 
due  in  part  to  the  widespread  attempt  to  evade  the  pay- 
ment of  the  tax  to  the  Capitoline  Jupiter  which  was 
levied  upon  all  the  Jews,  after  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem, as  a  substitute  for  the  ancient  temple  tax  which 
they  had  been  accustomed  to  send  to  the  latter  city.  The 
tax,  of  course,  was  collected  from  Jewish  Christians  as 
well  as  from  other  Jews,  and  there  were  so  many  of  the 
former  that  the  Christian  church,  as  well  as  the  Jewish 
synagogue,  must  have  had  the  attention  of  the  Roman 
officials  particularly  drawn  to  it ;  and  thus  Christianity  in 
general  must  have  shared  with  Judaism,  to  some  extent, 
at  least,  the  hostility  of  the  authorities,  even  though  the 
two  faiths  were  not  confounded  by  them.  But  Domitian's 
enmity,  both  to  Jews  and  to  Christians,  was  due  especially 

1  See  Ramsay :  Church  in  the  Roman  Empire,  p.  256  sq. 


THE  DEVELOPING   CHURCH  631 

to  their  known  disinclination  to  pay  the  emperor  such 
divine  honors  as  he  desired  to  receive  from  all  his  sub- 
jects. Upon  the  respect  and  homage  due  to  himself,  his 
jealous  and  suspicious  disposition  made  him  peculiarly 
sensitive,  and  many  besides  Jews  and  Christians  suffered 
his  vengeance  for  real  or  fancied  slights  which  were  inter- 
preted to  mean  disloyalty  and  rebellion.  Dion  Cassius 
records  that  during  his  reign  a  large  number  of  persons 
were  put  to  death,  or  had  their  property  confiscated  on  the 
charge  of  sacrilege.1  Among  them  were  Flavius  Clement, 
a  cousin  of  the  emperor  and  consul  in  the  year  95,  and 
his  wife  Domitilla.  The  former  was  executed;  the  latter 
banished.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Domitilla  at  least 
was  a  Christian,2  and  in  all  probability  it  was  primarily 
their  attachment  to  the  Christian  faith  which  brought  the 
emperor's  vengeance  upon  her  and  her  husband,  as  well  as 
upon  the  many  others  referred  to  by  Dion  Cassius.  We 
also  know  that  outside  of  Rome  the  disciples  had  to  en- 
dure severe  persecution  during  the  reign  of  Domitian,3 
and  that  the  mere  profession  of  Christianity  was  regarded 
as  a  crime  and  punished  with  death  in  some  sections  ;  4 
while  the  refusal  to  worship  the  image  of  the  emperor 
was  treated  in  the  same  way.5  The  emphasis  laid  by 
Domitian  upon  the  worship  of  the  emperor,  as  a  mark  of 
loyalty  to  the  empire,  must  necessarily  lead  the  authori- 
ties ultimately  to  regard  the  profession  of  Christianity  as 
tantamount  to  a  declaration  of  disloyalty  ;  and  though  no 
law  seems  to  have  been  passed  upon  the  subject,  we  find 
that  already  before  Pliny  became  governor  of  Bithynia,  it 
was  generally  recognized  as  a  capital  crime  to  be  con- 
nected with  the  church,  and  it  had  become  the  custom  to 
put  an  accused  Christian  to  the  test  by  requiring  him 
to  sacrifice  to  the  image  of  the  emperor.6  Just  when  this 


s,  Dion  Cassius,  LXVII.  14  (see  Neumann  :    Der  rihnische  Staat 
unddie  allgemeine  Kirche,  S.  14  sq.  ;  and  Ramsay,  I.e.  p.  260). 
2  Compare  Eusebius  :  H.  E.  III.  18  ;  and  see  Ramsay,  I.e.  p.  261. 
8  Cf.  1  Pet.  i.  6,  iii.  15,  Sv.  15,  v.  9,  and  the  Apocalypse,  passim. 
*  1  Pet.  iv,  14,  Ifi;  Rev.  ii.  i:j,  vi.  9,  etc. 
6  Rev.  xiii.  15,  xiv.  9,  xix.  20,  xx.  4. 
6  See  Pliny's  Epistle  to  Trajan  referred  to  on  p.  531,  above. 


632  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

custom  arose  we  do  not  know,  but  there  can  be  little 
doubt  that  it  had  its  origin  during  the  reign  of  Domitian. 
The  Christians,  then,  during  the  latter  part  of  the  first 
century  in  Rome,  as  well  as  elsewhere,  were  regarded 
as  dangerous  and  disloyal  characters,  and  though  no  law 
was  passed  against  them,  and  no  systematic  policy  of  ex- 
termination was  entered  upon  by  the  authorities  either 
imperial  or  provincial,  they  were  subjected  not  infrequently 
both  in  Rome  and  in  the  provinces  to  suffering  and  even  to 
death. 

But  the  hostility  of  the  state  thus  manifested,  and  the  per- 
secutions which  the  Christians  were  called  upon  to  endure, 
had  a  marked  effect  upon  the  development  of  the  church. 
Especially  striking  is  the  hatred  which  was  engendered 
among  the  disciples  for  the  power  which  oppressed  them, 
and  their  sense  of  the  irreconcilable  and  permanent  oppo- 
sition between  the  church  and  the  empire.  In  the  epistles 
of  Paul  no  such  feeling  is  exhibited.  On  the  contrary, 
believers  are  exhorted  to  honor  and  obey  the  constituted 
authorities,  and  it  is  said  expressly  that  the  powers  that 
be  are  ordained  of  God,  and  that  rulers  are  a  terror  not 
to  the  good  but  to  the  evil.1  The  same  attitude  toward  the 
state  is  inculcated  in  First  Peter,2  and  it  is  implied  in  that 
epistle  that  the  authorities  may  put  a  stop  to  their  perse- 
cution, if  the  Christians  show  by  their  conduct  the  purity 
and  harmlessness  of  their  lives.3  But  in  the  Apocalypse 
we  find  an  entirely  different  spirit.  The  state  there  ap- 
pears as  the  irreconcilable  foe  of  the  church,  and  the  war 
between  the  two  is  to  be  fought  out  to  the  bitter  end. 
Instead  of  preaching  submission  to  the  state  and  recogniz- 
ing it  as  a  power  ordained  of  God,  the  author  represents 
it  as  a  satanic  might  and  thinks  only  of  vengeance  upon 
it.  Enmity  for  it  knows  no  bounds,  and  he  calls  upon 
all  the  people  of  God  to  rejoice  over  its  approaching 
destruction.4  The  Apocalypse  constitutes  the  classic  ex- 
ample of  that  bitter  enmity  for  the  empire  with  which 

1  Rom.  xiii.  1,  3.    Compare  also  2  Thess.  ii.  G,  where  the  Roman  Empire 
seems  to  be  represented  as  a  restraining  power. 

2  1  Pet.  ii.  13  sq.  «  1  Pet.  ii.  12,  15,  iii.  16.  4  Rev.  xviii.  20. 


THE  DEVELOPING   CHURCH  633 

many  disciples  returned  the  latter's  hostility,  and  it  con- 
stitutes at  the  same  time  the  classic  example  of  the  way 
in  which  persecution  led  the  church  to  lay  emphasis  upon 
the  approaching  consummation  and  upon  the  blessedness 
and  glory  to  be  enjoyed  by  Christ's  followers  in  his  king- 
dom. This,  in  fact,  was  the  second  marked  effect  of 
persecution.  The  original  expectation  that  Christ  would 
speedily  return  to  establish  his  kingdom  could  not  fail  to 
be  enhanced  by  the  terrible  experiences  of  the  latter  part 
of  the  first  century,  and  Christians  must  be  more  than 
ever  convinced  that  the  time  was  at  hand. 

It  was  under  the  impulse  of  this  feeling  that  the  author 
of  the  Apocalypse,  like  so  many  Jewish  writers  from  the 
time  of  Daniel  on,  took  up  his  pen  to  depict,  for  the  com- 
fort and  inspiration  of  his  suffering  brethren,  the  good 
time  coming,  when  their  enemies  should  be  trampled 
under  foot  and  they  should  enjoy  blessedness  and  glory 
unspeakable.  The  aim  of  the  work,  which  was  addressed 
primarily  to  the  seven  churches  of  Asia  mentioned  in  the 
first  three  chapters,  was  the  same  as  that  of  First  Peter 
and  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  It  was  to  quicken  and 
arouse  Christian  courage  and  zeal  and  to  nerve  the  follow- 
ers of  Christ  to  continued  faithfulness  and  .endurance. 
But  the  method  employed  for  the  purpose  was  very  dif- 
ferent from  that  followed  in  those  epistles  ;  and  yet  it  was 
a  most  natural  method,  especially  for  one  familiar,  as  the 
writer  evidently  was,  with  the  apocalyptic  literature  of 
the  Jews  and  imbued  with  its  spirit.1  In  carrying  out  his 
task,  the  author  made  large  use  of  earlier  apocalyptic  writ- 
ings, probably  both  Christian  and  Jewish.2  That  much  of 

1  It  is  significant  of  the  degree  to  which  he  felt  the  influence  of  Jewish 
conceptions  that  he  represents  Christ  as  setting  up  an  earthly  kingdom  at  the 
time  of  his  return,  in  which  the  saints  are  to  rule  with  him  for  a  thousand 
years  before  the  final  onslaught  of  Satan  and  the  Last  Judgment  (xx.  4  sq.). 
This  is  the  earliest  distinct  statement  known  to  us  of  the  chiliastic  view  which 
was  so  common  in  the  church  of  the  second  century. 

2  The  investigations  of  scholars  during  recent  years  have  made  it  abun- 
dantly clear  that  the  author  of  the  Apocalypse  made  large  use  of   earlier 
sources,  though  the  number  and  extent  of  those  sources  are  still  a  matter  of 
debate,  and  will  probably  remain   so.     It  is  not  my  purpose  here  either  to 
reprcd  u-e  tho  ivMilts  of  others,  or  to  attempt  an  independent  analysis  of  my 
own.    Dr.  Briggs'  recent  work  on  ibe  Mcsxi.th  of  the  Apostles  contains  a  very 


634  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

the  material  besides  the  epistles  to  the  seven  churches  was 
original  with  himself,  there  can  be  little  doubt ;  but  it  is 
impossible  to  fix  its  limits  with  exactness,  and  the  line 
separating  the  various  sources  from  each  other  can  be 
drawn  only  approximately. 

The  work  in  its  present  form  evidently  dates  from  the 
reign  of  Domitian.  The  persecution  of  Nero  is  distin- 
guished in  vi.  9  sq.  from  the  persecution  which  the  read- 
ers were  enduring  at  the  time  the  author  was  writing. 
Domitian,  moreover,  is  referred  to  in  xvii.  11  under  the 
figure  of  the  eighth  beast,  and  is  pictured  as  a  Nero  re- 
divivus,  under  the  influence  of  a  widespread  popular  belief 
that  that  emperor  still  lived  and  would  yet  appear  upon 
the  scene,  and  in  accordance  with  the  common  Christian 
estimate  of  Domitian  as  a  second  Nero,  which  grew  up 
only  after  his  character  as  a  bitter  persecutor  had  become 
well  established.  But  various  indications  point  not  simply 
to  the  reign  of  Domitian,  but  to  the  latter  part  of  his  reign, 
as  the  date  of  the  Apocalypse.  The  policy  of  persecution 
had  been  established  for  some  time  when  the  work  was 
written,  and  many  had  suffered  for  their  faith.  It  was 
not  a  new  condition  which  the  author  faced,  as  was  the 
case  when  First  Peter  was  written.  The  battle  had  been 
raging  so  long  and  so  bitterly  that  all  hope  of  compromise 
and  reconciliation  was  past,  and  nothing  but  the  final  ad- 
vent of  Christ  for  the  destruction  of  his  enemies  could  put 
an  end  to  the  conflict.  Moreover,  the  practice  of  testing 
Christian  discipleship  by  requiring  those  accused  of  being 
Christians  to  worship  the  image  of  the  emperor  was  already 
in  vogue,  as  it  was  later  in  the  time  of  Pliny,  but  as  it 

careful  and  elaborate  analysis  which  may  be  studied  with  great  profit  (p.  284 
sq.).  Other  works  of  especial  importance  are  those  of  Volter  (Die  Entstehung 
der  Apokalypse,  1882 ;  2te  Auflage,  1885 ;  and  Das  Problem  der  Apokalypse, 
1893),  Vischer  (Die  Offenbarung  des  Johannes;  einejiidische  Apokalypse,  in 
Gebhardt  and  Harnack's  Texte  und  Untersuchunf/en,  II.  2,  1880),  Weizsiicker 
(Das  apostolische  Zeitalter,  188fi,  S.  504  sq.),  Sabatier  (Les  Origines  littera- 
raires  et  la  Composition  de  r Apocalypse  de  St.  Jean,  1887),  and  Spitta  (Die 
Offenbarung  des  Johannes  untersucht,  1889). 

For  farther  literature  upon  the  subject,  see  the  chapter  in  Dr.  Briggs'  work 
referred  to  just  above,  -and  also  a  valuable  article  by  Baldensperger  (in  the 
Zeitschrift  filr  Theoloyie  und  Kirche,  1894,  S.  232  sq.),  in  which  is  given  an 
excellent  review  of  the  progress  of  recent  investigation. 


THE   DEVELOPING   CHURCH  635 

seems  not  to  have  been  when  First  Peter  was  written. 
All  these  conditions  point  to  the  latter  part  of  Domitian's 
reign,  the  period  to  which  the  Apocalypse  is  expressly 
ascribed  by  Irenseus,  the  earliest  father  to  tell  us  anything 
about  its  composition.1  The  work,  as  has  been  already 
remarked,  constitutes  the  classic  example  of  that  strong 
hatred  for  the  Roman  Empire  which  its  persecuting  meas- 
ures aroused  in  the  hearts  of  many  Christians.  But  it  is 
to  be  noticed  that  the  seven  epistles  in  the  second  and 
third  chapters  lead  to  something  of  a  modification  of  the 
impression  made  by  the  work  as  a  whole,  that  at  the  time 
it  was  written  the  church  of  Asia  was  in  the  midst  of  an 
awful  and  bloody  persecution  which  was  resulting  in  the 
torture  and  death  of  multitudes  of  Christians.  Though 
it  is  implied  in  i.  9  and  iii.  10  that  persecution  was  the 
common  lot  of  the  churches  addressed,  and  though  through- 
out the  seven  epistles  emphasis  is  laid  upon  the  need  of 
patience  and  endurance,  persecution  is  explicitly  referred 
to  in  only  two  of  them :  in  the  epistles  to  the  churches  of 
Smyrna  and  Pergamum.  Moreover,  in  Smyrna  the  death 
penalty  had  apparently  not  yet  been  inflicted,2  while  in 
Pergamum  it  would  seem  that  only  one  martyr,  Antipas, 
had  lost  his  life.3  Evidently  it  was  not  so  much  specific 
cases  of  suffering  that  led  the  author  to  give  vent  to  his 
hatred  for  the  empire,  as  the  general  policy  to  which  the 
authorities  had  committed  themselves,  —  a  policy  which 
might  not  lead  to  many  deaths  in  any  one  place  or  at  any 
one  time,  but  which  meant  permanent  and  irreconcilable 
conflict  between  state  and  church.  The  same  conditions 
prevailed  during  a  large  part  of  the  century  that  followed. 
The  number  of  deaths  seems  never  to  have  been  large,  but 

1  Irenseus:  Adv.  Hser.  V.  30,  3.    The  indications  of  an  earlier  date,  which 
occur  in  some  parts  of  the  Apocalypse,  are  due  to  the  sources  of  which  the 
author  made  use,  and  cannot  be  urged  against  the  later  date,  which  is  too  well 
established  to  admit  of  doubt.    Among  those  indications  of  an  earlier  origin, 
one  of  the  most  notable  is  found  in  xi.  1  sq.    That  passage, 'whether  part  of 
a  larger  work  or  not,  was  apparently  written  by  a  Jew  during  the  latter  part 
of  the  Jewish  war,  while  the  Romans  were  in  possession  of  Jerusalem,  but 
when  the  temple  was  not  yet  destroyed.    To  about  the  same  period,  or  possi- 
bly to  the  reign  of  Vespasian,  parts  of  chaps,  xiii.  and  xvii.  are  also  probably 
to  be  referred. 

2  Rev.  ii.  10.  «  Rev.  ii.  13, 


636  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

the  enmity  of  the  empire  was  as  clearly  manifested  in  one 
death,  as  in  a  hundred.  The  principle  was  the  same  in 
either  case;  and  whenever  any  special  circumstances  led 
the  authorities  to  take  particular  cognizance  of  Christian- 
ity, increased  severity  was  always  the  result. 

But  the  hostility  of  the  state  thus  manifested  had  the 
effect  not  simply  of  arousing  the  hatred  of  Christians,  but 
also  of  compacting  the  church  and  broadening  the  line 
which  separated  it  from  the  world  at  large,  and  thus  mak- 
ing more  real  and  vivid  the  sense  of  unity  and  of  brother- 
hood which  had  always  existed  among  the  disciples  of 
Christ.  One  of  the  notable  facts  to  which  the  literature 
of  the  late  first  and  early  second  centuries  bears  testimony 
is  the  increasing  realization  of  the  ideal  of  Christian  unity 
and  the  growing  effort  to  give  that  ideal  practical  expres- 
sion and  visible  embodiment. 

5.   THE  UNITY  OF  THE  CHURCH 

The  conception  of  the  unity  of  the  church  of  Christ  was 
a  possession  of  Christian  believers  from  the  beginning.  It 
is  true  that  the  word  "church,"  in  the  universal  sense,  cannot 
be  proved  to  have  been  employed  before  Paul,1  but  the  con- 
ception, to  which  that  word  in  the  usage  of  Paul  and  of 
those  that  followed  him  gives  expression,  existed  from  the 
first.  The  original  disciples  of  Jesus  in  Jerusalem  thought 
of  themselves  as  a  family,  and  conversion  meant  their  in- 
corporation into  the  one  household  of  faith.  As  the 
Gospel  made  its  way  beyond  Palestine  the  same  feeling 
continued.  Christians  everywhere  were  conscious  of  be- 
longing to  one  family,  and  Christ's  disciples  were  brethren 
wherever  they  might  be.  It  was  one  of  Paul's  chief  con- 
cerns throughout  his  missionary  career  to  foster  this  sense 
of  unity  among  his  churches,  and  to  make  it  practical. 
He  was  interested  not  simply  in  individual  conversions, 
but  in  the  growth  of  the  church  of  God,  the  body  of 
Christ.2  It  was  that  church  which  he  had  persecuted,3 

1  The  word  ^KK\rj<rla  in  Matt.  xvi.  18  is  of  doubtful  authenticity.  Cf.  Briggs : 
Messiah  of  (he  Gospels,  p.  190,  note. 

a  Cf.  Eph.  i.  23  et  passim.  «  1  Cor.  xv.  9 ;  Gal.  i.  13 ;  Phil.  iii.  0, 


THE   DEVELOPING   CHURCH  63? 

and  it  was  that  church  to  whose  service  he  afterwards  gave 
himself  body  and  soul.1  But  Paul  was  concerned  not  sim- 
ply to  promote  the  unity  of  the  Christian  communities 
founded  by  him,  but  also  to  bind  them  all  to  the  Mother 
Church  at  Jerusalem.  It  was  no  mere  Gentile  church 
that  he  had  in  mind,  but  the  one  church  of  God  embracing 
all  Christ's  followers  everywhere;  the  one  family  of  faith 
with  its  centre  in  Jerusalem  and  with  its  members  in  all 
parts  of  the  world.2  It  was  the  threatened  breach  of  this 
unity — the  threatened  separation  between  his  churches 
and  the  Mother  Church  —  that  caused  him  such  concern 
at  the  time  of  the  Council  of  Jerusalem,3  and  it  was  with 
the  aim  of  preventing  such  a  break,  and  of  cementing 
more  closely  the  bond  that  bound  the  two  diverging  wings 
together,  that  he  made  so  much  of  the  great  collection  for 
the  poor  saints  of  Jerusalem  and  that  he  laid  it  upon  his 
churches  everywhere  as  a  sacred  duty.4  It  is  true  that  he 
was  not  wholly  successful  in  this  latter  aim ;  that  the 
Mother  Church  always  looked  with  more  or  less  suspicion 
upon  his  converts,  and  that  no  real  unity  between  them  was 
established.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  the  separation  finally 
became  complete  and  the  church  of  Jerusalem  and  the 
church  of  the  world  at  large  went  their  separate  and  inde- 
pendent ways.  But  in  spite  of  this  fact  the  principle  of 
unity  upon  which  Paul  laid  such  stress  lived  on  in  the 
world-church  —  the  church  of  history.  It  was  this  prin- 
ciple of  unity,  in  fact,  that  largely  controlled  the  develop- 
ment during  the  centuries  that  followed.  Christians  were 
conscious  of  belonging  not  simply  to  the  churches  of 
Ephesus,  of  Corinth,  or  of  Rome,  but  to  the  one  universal 
church  of  God.  Not  only  in  Paul's  epistles,  but  also  in 
the  literature  of  the  post-Panline  period,  this  conception 
of  the  universal  church  is  very  prominent.5  The  word 
"church,"  to  be  sure,  was  commonly  employed  not  by 
others  onty,  but  by  Paul  as  well,  in  a  local  sense,  to 


1  Col.  i.  24.  2  Rom.  xi.  13  sq. ;  Eph.  ii.  11  sq.  3  Gal.  ii.  3. 

4  Compare  especially  Rom.  xv.  27  and  2  Cor.  ix.  12  sq. 

6  Compare,  for  instance,  Heb.  xii.  23;   1  Pet.  ii.  9;  I.  Clement,  29,  30,  04; 
Didache,  IX.,  X. ;  Ignatius:  Phil.  9;  II.  Clement  14;  Hernias:  Vis.  II.  4. 


638  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

designate  the  Christians  of  a  particular  city,1  or  even  of 
a  particular  house.2  But  this  usage  does  not  in  the  least 
conflict  with  the  broader  conception.  The  church  in  the 
city  or  in  the  house  is  simply  a  local  manifestation  of 
the  church  of  God ;  there  is  in  reality  only  one  church  as 
there  is  only  one  body  of  Christ.  Of  that  true  Christians 
everywhere  are  members,  and  the  fact  that  they  dwell 
in  Ephesus  and  Corinth  and  Rome,  the  fact  that  they  are 
scattered  over  all  the  world,  does  not  in  the  least  interfere 
with  their  unity.  The  words  of  the  Didache  are  especially 
significant  in  this  connection :  "  As  this  broken  bread  was 
scattered  upon  the  mountains,  and  being  gathered  together 
became  one,  so  may  thy  church  be  gathered  together  from 
the  ends  of  the  earth  into  thy  kingdom."3 

It  was  a  long  time  before  this  conception  of  the  one 
church  of  God,  lying  back  of  all  local  bodies  of  Chris- 
tians, found  expression  in  organization.  It  was  long 
before  the  church  at  large  came  under  the  control  of  a 
common  authority  and  was  ruled  by  a  common  govern- 
ment. During  the  period  with  which  we  are  dealing,  and 
for  some  generations  thereafter,  the  unity  of  the  church 
universal  was  a  unity  of  spirit  rather  than  of  body.  Chris- 
tians everywhere  were  bound  together  by  a  common  faith, 
a  common  hope,  and  a  common  purpose.  They  were  con- 
scious of  belonging  to  the  elect  people  of  God.  But  there 
was  no  central  government,  and  no  compact  which  obliged 
one  part  to  submit  to  the  will  of  another  part,  or  of  the 
whole.  Their  unity  was  purely  ideal.  They  were  all 
members  of  the  one  body  of  Christ  bound  by  their  dis- 
cipleship  to  observe  his  will  and  to  love  their  brethren 
everywhere ;  but  they  were  entirely  free  to  interpret  that 
will  for  themselves,  and  to  go  their  own  independent  way. 

1  So  Paul  speaks  of  the  "  church  which  is  in  Corinth  "  (1  Cor.  i.  2) ;  of  the 
"  church  of  the  Thessalonians  "  (1  Thess.  i.  1) ;  of  the  "  church  in  CeuchreaB  " 
(Rom.  xvi.  1)  ;  and  in  the  plural  of  the  "  churches  of  Galatia"  (Gal.  i.  2)  ;  of 
the  "churches  of  Judea"  (Gal.  i.  22) ;  of  the  "churches  of  Asia  "  (1  Cor.  xvi. 
19) ;  of  the  "churches  of  the  Gentiles  "  (Rom.  xvi.  4)  ;  see  also  1  Cor.  xi.  16; 
2  Cor.  viii.  18,  etc. 

2  Paul  speaks  of  house-churches  in  Rom.  xvi.  5 ;  1  Cor.  xvi.  19;  Col.  iv.  15  ; 
Philemon  2. 

«  Didache,  IX. 


THE  DEVELOPING   CHURCH  639 

That  this  freedom  did  not  lead  ultimately  to  the  complete 
sacrifice  of  unity,  as  it  might  have  been  expected  to  do,  — 
that  all  the  local  churches  did  not  develop  along  separate 
and  divergent  lines,  and  the  Christianity  of  every  section 
remain  entirely  independent  and  distinct  from  the  Chris- 
tianity of  all  other  parts  of  the  world,  —  was  due  not 
simply  to  the  abstract  belief  in  the  unity  of  the  one 
church  of  God,  but  also  to  the  fact  that  from  the  earliest 
days  that  unity  found  practical  expression  in  many  ways, 
and  was  promoted  by  various  causes. 

Prominent  among  the  practical  expressions  of  church 
unity,  and  the  causes  that  promoted  that  unity,  was  the 
active  intercourse  which  was  kept  up  among  the  vari- 
ous Christian  communities.1  Communication  not  only 
between  different  parts  of  the  same  province,  but  also 
between  different  provinces,  was  very  active  under  the 
empire,  and  travel  was  very  brisk  along  the  great  Roman 
roads.  And  as  Paul  had  confined  himself  largely  in  his 
missionary  work  to  the  principal  cities  of  the  provinces 
which  he  visited,  and  to  the  important  towns  upon  the 
main  highways  of  travel  and  commerce,  it  was  but  natural 
that  the  disciples  of  different  places  should  see  much  of 
each  other.  The  sense  of  brotherhood  which  was  so  strong 
among  them  would  inevitably  lead  a  travelling  Christian 
to  seek  out  his  fellow-believers  in  every  city  in  which  he 
tarried  for  any  length  of  time.  Paul's  epistles,  as  well  as 
our  other  sources,  bear  frequent  testimony  to  the  closeness 
of  intercourse  thus  enjoyed.2  Indeed,  the  intercommuni- 
cation between  even  the  most  widely  separated  communi- 
ties was  so  general  and  so  constant  as  to  constitute  one  of 
the  most  marked  features  in  the  life  of  the  early  church. 
And  so  it  is  not  surprising  that  the  virtue  of  hospitality 
was  very  highly  esteemed,  and  that  it  is  inculcated  over 
and  over  again  in  the  writings  of  the  apostolic  age.3 

But  such  intercommunication  was  not  simply  accidental 
and  confined  to  the  chance  visits  of  Christians  who  were 

1  Compare  Ramsay:  Church  in  the  Roman  Empire,  p.  361  sq. 

2  Compare,  for  instance,  1  Cor.  i.  11,  xvi.  17 ;  Heb.  xiii.  23 ;  3  John  6. 

»Cf.  Rom.  xii.  13;  1  Tim.  in.  2;  Heb.  xiii.  2;  1  Pet.  iv.  9;  I.  Clement  1, 
10,  etc. 


640  THE   APOSTOLIC    AGE 

travelling  upon  other  business.  It  was  common  also  for 
church  to  communicate  with  church,  as  occasion  arose, 
through  regular  delegates  sent  for  the  purpose.  Paul,  as 
we  know,  often  despatched  messengers  from  one  part  of 
the  world  to  another,  and  his  converts  frequently  com- 
municated with  him  in  the  same  way.1  And  so  the  church 
of  Rome,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  first  century,  sent  a 
deputation  to  Corinth,  and  despatched  a  letter  thither 
with  the  aim  of  putting  an  end  to  the  schism  which  was 
distracting  the  Corinthian  church ; 2  and  Ignatius,  in  his 
epistles  to  Polycarp  and  to  the  churches  of  Philadelphia 
and  Smyrna,  requested  that  delegates  might  be  sent  to 
Syria  to  congratulate  the  disciples  there  upon  the  re- 
stored peace  which  they  were  enjoying.3  Such  constant 
intercommunication,  and  such  manifestations  of  interest  in 
the  welfare  of  sister  churches,  of  course  tended  to  keep 
alive  the  sense  of  unity  of  which  they  were  the  practical 
expression,  and  at  the  same  time  to  promote  uniformity  in 
the  beliefs  and  customs  of  Christendom. 

But  unity  and  uniformity  were  also  promoted  by  the 
itinerant  apostles  and  prophets  who  were  very  numer- 
ous in  the  early  church.  Besides  the  Twelve  and  Paul 
himself,  there  were  many  other  apostles  engaged  in  the 
work  of  evangelizing  the  Roman  world  during  the  first 
and  early  second  centuries.4  And  in  addition  to  them 
there  were  prophets  and  other  teachers  who  travelled  from 
place  to  place  imparting  divine  revelations  and  preaching 
the  word  of  God.5  They  were  received  with  great  honor, 
and  were  heard  with  respect  wherever  they  went.  Their 
utterances  were  listened  to  commonly  as  messages  from 
God,  and  their  influence  in  moulding  the  conceptions  and 
the  customs  of  the  church  at  large  was  tremendous.  It 
was  very  largely  through  them  that  unity  was  preserved 

1  Cf.  2  Cor.  viii.  18  sq. ;  Eph.  vi.  21 ;  Col.  iv.  7 ;  Phil.  ii.  19,  25 ;  1  Thess.  iii. 
2 ;  2  Tim.  iv.  12 ;  1  Cor.  vii.  1 ;  Phil.  iv.  16. 

2  Cf .  Clement :  Ad  Cor.  65. 

8  Ignatius:  Phil.  10,  Smyr.  11,  Polycarp,  7. 

4  Compare,  for  instance,  Acts  xiv.  4,  14;  1  Cor.  xii.  28,  xv.  7;  Rom.  xvi.  7; 
1  Thess.  ii.  6;  2  Cor.  xi.  13;  Rev.  ii.  2,  and  especially  Didactic,  XL 
•  Compare  especially  1  Cor.  xii.  28,  and  Didache,  XI. 


THE  DEVELOPING   CHURCH  641 

between  different  parts  of  Christendom,  and  that  it  was 
made  possible  for  communities,  even  of  the  most  widely 
sundered  provinces,  to  develop  with  so  striking  uniformity. 
It  would  be  impossible  to  exaggerate  the  significance  of 
these  travelling  apostles,  prophets,  and  teachers.  It  is 
true  that  we  have  few  records  of  their  activity,  and  that 
their  names  have  nearly  all  perished;  but  the  general 
results  of  their  work  are  very  apparent,  and  the  few  refer- 
ences we  have  to  them  show  how  numerous  and  how  dili- 
gent they  must  have  been. 

That  it  was  possible,  when  the  disciples  came  chiefly  from 
the  lower  classes  of  society,  for  such  apostles,  prophets, 
and  teachers  to  devote  themselves  to  religious  work,  and 
even  to  leave  their  homes  and  travel  from  place  to  place, 
was  due  largely  to  the  fact  that  they  were  welcomed 
everywhere  by  their  brethren  and  supplied  by  them  with 
the  necessaries  which  they  might  require  upon  their  farther 
journey.  Doubtless  there  were  many  of  them  who,  like  Paul, 
maintained  themselves  by  the  work  of  their  hands.  But 
it  was  recognized  that  they  had  the  right  to  expect  enter- 
tainment and  support  from  those  to  whom  they  ministered.1 
It  was  widely  regarded,  indeed,  as  their  duty  to  depend 
wholly  upon  the  hospitality  of  others,  and  to  take  nothing 
with  them  upon  their  journeys  except  the  bare  means  of 
subsistence  while  going  from  place  to  place.2 

Still  another  means  by  which  the  unity  of  the  church 
at  large  was  promoted,  was  the  custom  of  sending  apos- 
tolic and  other  important  epistles  around  from  church  to 
church,  that  others  besides  those  to  whom  they  were 
addressed  might  enjoy  the  benefit  of  their  perusal.  Thus 
Paul  directed  that  his  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  should  be 
read  in  the  neighboring  church  of  Laodicea,  and  the  epis- 
tle from  Laodicea  in  Colossse.3  And  so  Clement's  refer- 
ence, in  his  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,4  to  Paul's  letter 
to  them  shows  that  that  letter  was  read  in  his  day  at 
Rome  as  well  as  at  Corinth.  The  same  custom  was  fol- 

1  Compare,  for  instance,  Matt.  x.  10 ;  1  Thess.  ii.  6 ;  1  Cor.  ix.  12  sq. ;  2  Cor. 
xi.  7  sq. ;  Didache,  XI. 

2  Compare  Matt.  x.  9  sq. ;  Didache,  XI. 

3  Col.  iv.  16.  4  Clement:  Ad  Cor.  47, 


642  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

lowed  also  with  other  writings  than  those  of  Paul.  The 
Philippians  in  the  second  century  requested  Polycarp  to 
forward  them  copies  of  the  epistles  of  Ignatius,  that  they 
might  be  edified  by  their  perusal ; l  and  Hernias  was  di- 
rected in  his  vision  not  only  to  read  his  book  to  the  church 
of  Rome,  but  also  to  have  copies  of  it  sent  by  Clement  to 
other  cities,  that  "  all  the  elect "  might  read  it.2  Indeed, 
many  works  during  the  period  with  which  we  are  dealing 
were  expressly  addressed  to  a  wider  public  than  a  single 
church.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  was  designed 
for  the  churches  of  Galatia,  and  must  have  been  sent  con- 
sequently from  one  city  to  another  throughout  the  province. 
The  so-called  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  was  also  a  genuine 
circular  letter,  intended  for  a  wide  circle  of  readers  resi- 
dent apparently  in  different  parts  of  the  province  of 
Asia.3  The  same  is  true,  too,  of  First  and  Second  Corin- 
thians, in  which  not  only  the  church  of  Corinth  itself  is 
mentioned  in  the  salutation,  but  also,  in  the  one  case,  "all 
the  saints  which  are  in  the  whole  of  Achaia  " ;  and,  in  the 
other  case,  "  all  that  call  upon  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  in  every  place."  Similarly  the  Apocalypse  was 
intended  for  a  large  public.  Seven  churches  of  Asia  are 
addressed  in  it,  and  they  doubtless  simply  as  representa- 
tives of  the  entire  church  of  the  province.  What  is  true 
of  some  of  Paul's  epistles  and  of  the  Apocalypse  is  still 
more  true  of  most  of  the  so-called  catholic  epistles. 
First  Peter  is  expressly  addressed  to  the  Christians  of 
all  the  five  provinces  of  Asia  Minor,  James  still  more 
generally  to  the  "twelve  tribes  of  the  dispersion,"4  and 
in  2  Peter,  Jude,  and  1  John  the  circle  of  readers  is  not 
limited  in  any  way.  Such  general  or  catholic  epistles  of 
course  imply,  so  far  as  the  addresses  are  original,  that  their 
authors  were  recognized  as  apostles  or  prophets  not  simply 

1  Polycarp:  Ad  Phil.  13. 

2  Hermas :    Vis.  II.  4.    Compare  also  Dionysius  of  Corinth  in  Eusebius : 
H.  E.  IV.  23. 

3  See  above,  p.  380. 

4  Ou  the  address  see  above,  p.  583.    As  remarked  there,  James  was  probably 
not  written  as  an  epistle  but  as  a  homily;  but  it  may  have  been  sent  out  later 
in:o  the  world  at  large  as  a  catholic  epistle  or  tract,  by  its  own  author  or  by 
some  one  else. 


THE   DEVELOPING   CHURCH  643 

by  particular  communities,  but  by  the  church  at  large,  or 
at  least  by  large  sections  of  it.  They  presuppose,  in  fact, 
the  travelling  missionaries  and  preachers  to  whom  refer- 
ence was  made  just  above.  Only  because  there  were  such 
men  who  were  going  from  place  to  place,  and  were  received 
everywhere  with  honor  as  Christ's  divinely  commissioned 
messengers,  could  1  Peter,  1  John,  Jude,  and  James  (if  it 
be  an  epistle  at  all)  have  been  written.1  But  it  is  clear 
that  all  such  general  epistles,  and  all  other  epistles  which 
had  more  than  a  local  circulation,  must  have  contributed 
to  the  sense  of  unity  between  the  churches,  and  must  have 
promoted  a  uniformity  of  development  in  the  different 
parts  of  Christendom.  Not  to  the  same  extent  as  the 
apostles  and  prophets  themselves  did  such  writings  in- 
fluence the  life  of  the  church  at  large.  The  spoken 
word  always  preceded  the  written;  and  they  were  ad- 
dressed not  to  the  unconverted,  but  to  those  who  were 
already  within  the  fold,  and  hence  their  influence  was  only 
secondary,  not  primary.  And  yet  it  was  real,  nevertheless, 
and  account  must  be  taken  of  it  in  every  attempt  to  trace 
the  history  of  the  church  during  the  generations  that 
followed. 

The  same  is  true  to  some  extent  of  the  Gospels,  which 
were  intended  not  for  a  single  church  or  community,  but 
for  the  world  at  large.  The  conceptions  of  the  earliest 
generations  of  Christians  were  not  formed,  to  be  sure,  nor 
were  they  influenced  to  any  great  extent  by  the  Gospels. 
It  was  long  before  those  works  secured  any  wide  cir- 
culation, and  they  commonly  found  the  Christianity  of  the 
communities  to  which  they  came  more  or  less  stereotyped. 
But  after  they  had  made  their  way  into  general  circula- 
tion, they  had  some  effect  in  controlling  the  development 
of  Christian  thought,  and  in  keeping  alive  the  sense  of 
unity  throughout  the  church  at  large,  by  holding  always 
before  the  minds  of  believers  everywhere  the  idea  of  their 
common  Master  and  of  their  common  discipleship. 

1  Second  Peter  of  course  falls,  as  a  pseudonymous  work,  into  a  different 
class.  It  appealed  for  a  hearing  not  to  its  real  author's  apostolic  or  prophetic 
character,  but  to  the  authority  of  Peter,  under  whose  name  it  passed. 


644  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

Thus  various  agencies  aided,  in  one  way  or  another,  and 
to  a  greater  or  less  degree,  in  preserving  and  promoting 
the  sense  of  unity  which  existed  from  the  beginning,  and 
made  it  possible,  in  spite  of  the  disintegrating  influence  of 
local  conditions  and  interests,  for  the  most  widely  separated 
churches  to  keep  in  touch  with  each  other  and  to  develop 
along  the  same  general  lines. 

But  the  actual  unity  of  the  church  at  large  was  pro- 
moted, also,  by  the  pressure  of  persecution  from  without 
and  of  heresy  from  within.  That  unity  would  have  found 
expression,  and  would  have  been  conserved  in  the  ways 
that  have  been  indicated,  even  had  no  such  pressure  been 
felt.  But  the  immediate  effect  of  the  hostility  of  the  state, 
as  has  been  already  indicated,  was  to  lead  Christians  every- 
where to  realize  more  and  more  their  heavenly  citizenship 
and  destiny,  and  the  broad  line  which  separated  them  from 
the  world  about  them,  and  which  marked  them  off  from 
their  neighbors  as  a  peculiar  people,  as  fellow-disciples  of 
a  common  Lord.  Thus  their  oneness  was  emphasized  and 
increased  under  the  pressure  of  persecution.  But  still 
more  marked  was  the  effect  of  heresy;  of  the  growth  of 
principles  and  practices  which  Christians  in  general  looked 
upon  as  utterly  subversive  of  the  religion  of  Christ.  The 
forms  which  those  principles  and  practices  commonly  took, 
during  the  period  with  which  we  are  dealing,  have  been 
already  indicated  and  do  not  concern  us  here ;.  but  the 
effect  which  they  had  upon  the  development  of  the  world- 
church  is  of  the  very  greatest  historic  significance.  That 
effect,  in  a  word,  was  to  narrow  and  define  the  circle  of 
Christian  brotherhood,  and  thus  to  make  the  church  in 
reality  something  less  than  the  sum  of  all  Christ's  fol- 
lowers. The  process  of  exclusion,  by  which  all  that  did 
not  accept  certain  well-defined  doctrines,  and  govern  their 
lives  in  accordance  with  certain  specified  laws,  were  finally 
put  without  the  pale  of  the  church  and  regarded  as  no 
better  than  the  unbelieving  heathen  about  them,  was 
only  in  its  incipiency  in  the  apostolic  age.  The  line 
was  not  yet  sharply  drawn,  and  the  false  teachers  and 
their  followers  were  still  commonly  within  the  churches 


THE   DEVELOPING   CHURCH  645 

addressed  in  the  letters  attacking  and  denouncing  them.1 
But  the  principle  which  must  result  in  their  ultimate 
exclusion  is  enunciated  in  all  those  letters.  They  are 
not  true  Christians  and  members  of  the  body  of  Christ, 
and  so  they  cannot  be  allowed  permanently  to  commune 
and  to  associate  as  brethren  with  those  who  are.  Into  the 
steps  which  the  church  at  large  took  in  its  effort  to  exclude 
such  men,  we  cannot  enter  here.  They  fall  within  the 
second  century.2  And  yet,  even  in  some  of  the  writings 
which  form  a  part  of  our  New  Testament  canon,  we  find 
one  of  those  steps  foreshadowed.  There  are  hints,  for  in 
stance,  in  Jude  17  and  in  2  Peter  iii.  2  of  that  tendency 
which  resulted  ultimately  in  the  universal  recognition  of 
the  teaching  of  the  apostles  as  an  exclusive  standard  and 
norm  of  Christian  truth. 

Thus,  as  a  result  of  the  growth  of  false  principles  and 
practices  among  the  disciples  themselves,  the  church  of 
Christ,  which  originally  comprised  all  that  professed  them- 
selves his  followers,  was  finally  narrowed  to  include  only 
a  part  of  them,  and  without  its  pale  were  large  numbers 
who  claimed  to  be  truly  his  disciples.  The  sense  of  unity 
among  those  within  was  increased  by  the  exclusion,  but  it 
was  no  longer  an  all-embracing  unity.  The  world-church, 
like  the  Jewish  Christian  church  before  it,  had  become  an 
exclusive  institution,  and  the  age  of  Catholicism,  which 
meant  at  the  same  time  the  age  of  sectarianism,  had 
already  dawned. 

6.   THE  DEVELOPING  ORGANIZATION  8 

The  result  referred  to  at  the  close  of  the  previous  sec- 
tion implies  that  the  original  unity  of  the  church  of  Christ 

1  Compare  not  only  Paul's  epistles,  but  also  Second  and  Third  John ;  Jude 
12;  Rev.  ii.  14  sq.,  etc.    From  1  John  ii.  19,  it  seems  that  those  whom  the 
author  attacks  had  already  separated  themselves  from  those  addressed. 

2  In  my  Inaugural  Address,  entitled  Primitive  and  Catholic  Christianity 
(p.  29),  I  describe  those  steps  in  the  following  words:  "These  steps  were 
three :  first,  the  recognition  of  the  teaching  of  the  Apostles  as  the  exclusive 
standard  and  norm  of  Christian  truth ;  second,  the  confinement  to  a  specific 
office  (viz.,  the  Catholic  office  of  bishop)  of  the  power  to  determine  what  is  the 
teaching  of  the  Apostles;  and  third,  the  designation  of  a  specific  institution 
(viz.,  the  Catholic  Church)  as  the  sole  channel  of  divine  grace." 

3  Upon  this  subject  see  especially  Hatch :  The  Organization  of  the  Early 


646  '    THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

had  been  succeeded  by  a  legal  unity ;  that  the  church  had 
already  begun  to  organize  itself,  and  to  take  on  the  form 
of  a  visible  institution  with  a  regular  government,  with 
definite  laws,  and  with  the  right  to  inflict  penalties  for 
rebellion  against  that  government,  and  for  the  violation  of 
those  laws.  That  process  of  organization  began  before  the 
close  of  the  period  with  which  this  volume  deals,  and  to  it, 
so  far  as  it  lies  within  the  first  century,  we  must  now  devote 
our  attention.  If  we  would  understand  it,  we  must  re- 
member that  the  universal  church  did  not  grow  out  of 
the  local  congregations,  but  that  they  grew  out  of  it;  that 
they  believed  themselves  to  be  simply  manifestations  of 
the  kingdom  of  God  established  on  earth  by  Christ.1  It  is 
clear,  therefore,  that  our  study  must  begin  not  with  the 
local  communities,  but  with  the  church  of  Christ  that  lay 
back  of  them.2  That  church  owed  its  origin  to  Jesus  him- 
self, but  its  spread  primarily  to  his  apostles.  They  had 
been  chosen  by  him  to  be  his  witnesses  in  an  especial  sense, 
and  to  proclaim  the  Gospel  to  the  unevangelized.  Their 
work  was  evangelistic  work,  and  they  carried  it  on  after 
his  death,  first  of  all  in  Jerusalem,  and  afterwards  in  other 
parts  of  the  world.  If  they  were  true  to  their  calling,  they 
were  as  truly  apostles  or  missionaries  in  the  beginning  at 
Jerusalem,  as  when  they  were  later  journeying  about  in 
distant  lands,  preaching  to  those  who  had  never  heard 
of  Jesus.  They  were  serving  the  church  at  large  in 
the  one  case  as  truly  as  in  the  other.  But  the  Twelve 
were  not  the  only  apostles  in  the  early  church.  Indeed, 
the  name  "  apostle "  was  not  originally  a  distinctive  title 
of  the  Twelve.  There  were  many  apostles  or  missionaries, 
but  among  them  the  Twelve  were  especially  distinguished, 

Christian  Churches ;  translated  into  German  with  notes  and  excursuses  by 
Harnack  under  the  title  Die  Gesellschaftsverfassunc/  der  christlichen  Kirchen 
im  Alterthum;  Harnack  in  his  edition  of  the  Didache  (Texte  und  Unter- 
suchnngen,  II.  1,  S.  88  sq.) ;  Weizsacker,  I.e.  S.  606  sq.  (Eng.  Trans.,  II. 
p.  291  sq.) ;  Loening :  Die  Gemeindeverfassung  des  Urchristenthums ;  Loofs  in 
the  Theologische  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1890,  ,S.  619  sq. ;  Sohm:  Kirchen- 
recht,  Bd.  I.;  Re'ville:  Les  Origines  de  L' Episcopal ;  and  of  the  older 
literature,  Lightfoot's  Essay  on  the  Christian  Ministry,  in  his  Commentary  on 
Philippians. 

1  See  above,  p.  638.  a  Compare  Sohm,  I.e.  S.  16  sq. 


THE  DEVELOPING   CHURCH  647 

because  they  had  been  singled  out  by  Christ  for  special  ser- 
vice and  privilege.  An  examination  of  the  literature  of 
the  first  century  is  very  instructive  in  this  connection.1  In 
the  Gospel  of  Matthew  the  twelve  appointed  by  Christ  are 
commonly  spoken  of  as  the  twelve  disciples.2  They  are 
called  apostles  only  once,  and  then  not  "  The  Apostles  "  as 
if  they  were  the  only  ones,  but  "  The  twelve  Apostles." 3 
In  the  Gospel  of  Mark  they  are  called  "  The  Apostles  " 
only  once,4  in  all  other  passages  "The  Twelve."5  In  the 
Gospel  of  John  they  are  not  referred  to  at  all  as  "  The 
Apostles  "  ;  indeed  the  word  "  apostle  "  occurs  only  once  in 
the  Gospel,  and  then  only  in  the  most  general  sense.6 

On  the  other  hand,  in  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  the  Twelve 
are  called  "The  Apostles"  in  ix.  10,  xvii.  5,  xxii.  14 ;7 
and  in  the  Book  of  Acts  they  are  thus  designated  some 
twenty-eight  times,  being  called  "  The  Twelve "  only 
once,8  and  then  evidently  under  the  influence  of  an  older 
source.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  in  the  first  century  the  word 
"  apostle  "  is  used  in  an  eminent  sense  of  the  Twelve  (and 
of  Paul)  only  in  the  writings  of  Paul  himself,  and  of  those 
authors  who  had  felt  his  influence.  That  peculiar  use  of 
the  word  seems  to  have  been  a  result  of  the  controversy 
between  Paul  and  the  Judaizers.  It  was  not  enough  for 
him  to  claim  that  he  was  an  apostle  in  the  sense  in  which 
every  missionary  was.  The  Judaizers  urged  over  against 
him  the  teaching  and  practice  of  the  original  Twelve,  and 
it  was  necessary,  consequently,  for  Paul  to  show  that  he 
had  been  called  by  Christ  in  as  true  and  direct  a  way  as 

1  Compare  also  Harnack's  edition  of  the  Didache,  S.  115  sq. 

2  Matt.  x.  i,  xi.  1,  xx.  17,  xxvi.  20. 

3  Matt.  x.  2.    In  two  cases  they  are  spoken  of  as  "the  Twelve"  (xxvi.  14, 
47) ;  once  as  "these  Twelve "  (x.  5) . 

4  Mark  vi.  30.     Very  likely  through  a  conformation  of  the  text  to  the  text 
of  Luke,  as  in  Mark  iii.  14,  where  in  some  manuscripts  the  words  "  whom  also 
he  named  apostles  "  are  added  from  Luke  vi.  13. 

5  Mark  iv.  10,  vi.  7,  ix.  35,  x.  32,  xi.  11,  xiv.  10,  17,  20,  43.    In  iii.  14  they 
are  called  simply  "  Twelve." 

6  John  xiii.  16:   "An  apostle  [that  is,  "one  sent"]  is  not  greater  than  he 
that  sent  him."    In  John  vi.  67,  70,  71  they  are  called  "  the  Twelve." 

7  Cf .  also  Luke  vi.  13 :  "  He  chose  twelve  of  them  and  called  them  apostles. " 
They  are  called  "  the  Twelve  "  in  Luke  viii.  1,  ix.  1,  12,  xviii.  31,  xxii.  3,  47, 
apparently  in  each  case  under  the  influence  of  an  older  source. 

8  Acts  vi.  2. 


648  THE   APOSTOLIC    AGE 

they,  and  that  his  credit  and  authority  were  equal  to  theirs. 
He  could  not  call  himself  one  of  the  Twelve,  of  course ; 
but  he  could  emphasize  the  fact  that  his  apostleship  was 
as  high  as  theirs,  and  that  it  involved  all  that  theirs  did ; 
that  he  represented  to  the  Gentiles  what  they  did  to  the 
Jews ;  that  he  was  the  apostle  of  the  uncircumcision  in  the 
same  eminent  sense  in  which  they  were  the  apostles  of 
the  circumcision.  The  controversy  thus  tended  to  set  both 
the  Twelve  and  Paul  apart  from  all  other  apostles  in  the 
minds  of  his  followers,  and  it  was  inevitable  that  the  title, 
upon  which  he  laid  such  emphasis  and  which  was  common 
both  to  him  and  them,  should  be  used  in  Pauline  circles, 
if  not  exclusively,  at  any  rate  in  a  peculiar  sense,  of  him- 
self and  the  Twelve.  In  his  own  epistles  the  word  is 
employed  frequently  in  the  broader  sense,1  but  it  is  implied 
in  many  passages  that  he  regards  his  own  apostleship,  and 
with  it  the  apostleship  of  the  Twelve,  as  of  a  higher  grade 
and  greater  dignity  than  that  of  others.2 

In  the  Gospels  of  Matthew,  Mark,  and  John,  as  already 
indicated,  and  in  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,3  the  common  use 
of  the  word  in  a  broader  sense  is  implied,  and  in  the  Apoca- 
lypse 4  and  the  Didache 5  the  word  is  explicitly  employed 

1  Cf .  Rom.  xvi.  7 ;  1  Cor.  iv.  9,  ix.  5,  xv.  7 ;  1  Thess.  ii.  6.  It  is  significant 
that  Paul  uses  the  word  in  a  still  broader  sense  to  designate  messengers 
appointed  by  a  particular  church  for  a  particular  mission,  as  in  2  Cor.  viii.  23 
and  Phil.  ii.  25.  This  makes  still  more  evident  the  originally  unofficial  char- 
acter of  the  word. 

a  Cf .  Rom.  i.  1 ;  1  Cor.  ix.  1,  xv.  5  sq. ;  Gal.  i.  1,  17,  19 ;  Eph.  i.  1 ;  and  espe- 
cially 1  Cor.  i.  1,  2  Cor.  i.  1,  Col.  i.  1,  where  he  distinguishes  himself  in  the  one 
case  from  Sosthenes  and  in  the  other  cases  from  Timothy  by  the  use  of  the 
title  "apostle,"  although  Timothy  at  least  was  an  apostle,  as  we  learn  from 
1  Thess.  ii.  6.  It  is  worthy  of  notice  also  that  in  Eph.  iv.  11  Paul  apparently 
uses  the  word  in  its  narrower  sense  to  designate  only  the  Twelve  and  himself, 
for  only  thus,  it  would  seem,  can  the  enumeration  of  evangelists  after  apostles 
and  prophets  be  explained.  The  word  "  evangelist "  occurs  in  only  two  other 
passages  in  the  New  Testament,  in  Acts  xxi.  8  of  Philip  and  in  2  Tim.  iv.  5  of 
Timothy,  who  is  included  among  the  apostles  by  Paul  himself  in  1  Thess.  ii.  <>. 
The  word  is  not  found,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  in  the  literature  of  the  second 
century,  but  it  is  used  by  Eusebius  (H.  E.  III.  37  and  V.  10)  to  designate  the 
missionaries  who  are  called  apostles  in  the  Didache.  Evidently  the  evange- 
lists were  simply  apostles,  and  the  only  reason  for  the  use  of  the  word  "  evange- 
list "  was  the  desire  to  confine  the  title  "  apostle  "  to  the  Twelve  and  Paul. 

8  Barnabas,  V.  9,  VIII.  3. 

4  In  Rev.  ii.  2  the  reference  to  false  apostles  implies  the  existence  of  true 
apostles  besides  the  Twelve,  for  they  were  known  to  be  false  only  after  trial. 

6  Didache,  XI. 


THE   DEVELOPING   CHURCH  649 

in  that  sense.  In  the  Book  of  Acts,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  broader  meaning  appears  only  twice,1  and  then  appar- 
ently under  the  influence  of  an  older  source ;  while  in 
Clement  and  Ignatius  the  word  is  used  as  the  exclusive 
title  of  Paul  and  the  Twelve.2  In  other  writings  of  the 
same  period  the  usage  is  ambiguous. 

It  is  clear  that  as  Paul  used  the  title,  and  as  it  was  used 
in  the  Apocalypse  and  in  the  Didache,  it  did  not  imply 
that  the  person  designated  by  it  had  necessarily  seen  Jesus ; 
for  Paul  uses  it  of  Timothy  in  1  Thess.  ii.  6  and  of  Apollos 
in  1  Cor.  iv.  9,  and  even  though  it  is  possible  that  Silvanus, 
Andronicus,  and  Junias,  to  whom  he  also  applies  it,3  may 
have  seen  Christ,  Timothy  and  Apollos  certainly  had  not.4 
Moreover,  in  view  of  the  late  date  of  the  Didache,  it  is  ot 
course  impossible  that  the  travelling  apostles  whom  it 
mentions  can  have  been  personal  disciples  of  Jesus,  and 
the  same  is  true  of  the  false  apostles  referred  to  and  of  the 
true  apostles  implied  in  Rev.  ii.  2.  Thus  even  in  circles 
where  the  influence  of  Jewish  Christianity  was  felt  to  a 
marked  degree,  personal  association  with  Jesus  during  his 
earthly  life  was  not  regarded  as  an  essential  precondition 
of  apostleship.  But  a  divine  call  and  endowment  were 
universally  regarded  as  necessary.  The  mere  fact  that  a 
man  proclaimed  the  Gospel  did  not  make  him  an  apostle. 
Only  as  he  was  doing  the  work  under  the  direct  impulse 
and  guidance  of  the  Spirit  could  he  lay  claim  to  the  title 
of  apostle,  and  only  in  so  far  as  it  was  recognized  that  he 
was  working  thus  would  the  title  be  accorded  him  by  those 

1  Acts  xiv.  4, 14. 

2  Cf .  Clement :  Ad  Cor.  42,  44, 47 ;  and  especially  Ignatius :  Magn.  6,  Trail. 
3,  7,  Rom.  4,  Phil.  9.    See  also  Harnack,  I.e.  S.  117,  note. 

3  1  Thess.  ii.  G ;  Rom.  xvi.  7. 

4  It  is  true  that  1  Cor.  ix.  1  seems  at  first  glance  to  indicate  that  no  one 
could  be  an  apostle  who  had  not  actually  seen  Jesus,  but  that  interpretation 
will  not  hold.     Paul  in  that  passage  is  not  mentioning  qualifications  of  apos- 
tles in  general,  but  qualifications  which  he  himself  possesses,  and  which  put 
him  on  the  same  plane  with  the  Twelve,  and  make  him  the  equal  of  any 
apostle  however  high  his  standing.     Strange  to  say,  even  Sohm  (I.e.  S.  42)  fol- 
lows Lightfoot  in  accepting  the  common  opinion  as  to  the  necessity  of  the 
qualification  in  question,  but  the  passage  which  he  cites  (1  Cor.  xv.  7)  does 
not  prove  that  according  to  Paul   there  could  never  be  any  apostles  except 
such  as  had  seen  Christ,  but  only  that  Christ  appeared  to  all  that  were  then 
apostles. 


650  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

to  whom  he  ministered.  The  basis  of  his  apostleship  was 
divine,  not  human,  and  his  credentials  were  God-given.1 
It  is  very  likely  true  that  apostles  were  sometimes  appointed 
and  sent  out  by  this  or  that  church,  and  that  they  were 
given  letters  of  introduction  and  commendation  which 
vouched  for  their  apostolic  character  and  mission.2  But 
even  in  such  cases  it  was  not  the  appointment  of  the  church 
which  made  them  apostles ;  only  the  divine  call  could  do 
that.  All  that  the  church  could  do  was  to  bear  testimony 
to  its  conviction  that  such  a  call  had  been  received,  and 
that  the  person  in  question  was  consequently  fitted  to  do 
apostolic  work  and  worthy  to  receive  recognition  and  honor. 
And  even  then  a  man's  apostleship  must  be  continually 
tested  by  his  character  and  accomplishment.  The  right  of 
churches  and  of  individuals  to  test  the  claims  of  those  who 
came  to  them  as  apostles  was  everywhere  recognized,  and 
it  is  a  decisive  proof  of  the  unofficial  character  of  the  latter.3 
It  was  seen  in  an  earlier  chapter  that  the  Twelve  did 
not  occupy  any  official  position  in  the  church  of  Jeru- 
salem or  in  the  church  at  large.4  Their  personal  signifi- 
cance was  due  not  to  the  fact  that  they  were  the  incumbents 
of  the  highest  office  in  the  church,  but  simply  to  the  fact 
that  they  were  Christ's  chosen  missionaries,  and  as  such 
had  a  peculiar  responsibility  for  the  spread  of  the  Gospel. 
They  were  preachers  and  teachers,  and  their  true  mission 
was  not  to  hold  office,  but  to  proclaim  the  message  of  Christ. 
They  owed  whatever  dignity  and  authority  they  possessed 
solely  to  their  spiritual  character  and  endowment.  What 
was  true  of  them  was  true  also  of  all  the  other  apostles. 
They  were  officials  neither  of  a  local  congregation  nor  of 
the  church  at  large.  They  served  the  church  universal, 
devoting  themselves  to  the  conversion  of  the  world  and 

1  Among  those  credentials  were  the  performance  of  signs  and  wonders 
(2  Cor.  xii.  12),  the  patient  endurance  of  hardships  and  trials  (2  Cor.  xii.  12  and 
xi.  23),  the  spiritual  power  of  his  preaching  (1  Cor.  ii.  4  sq.),  and  the  success 
of  his  missionary  work  (1  Cor.  ix.  2). 

2  Cf.  2  Cor.  iii.  1. 

8  Cf.,  for  instance,  1  Cor.  ix.  1  sq. ;  also  2  Cor.  xi.  13,  22  sq.,  xii.  12  sq.,  xiii. 
3,  and  in  general  the  whole  of  chaps,  x.-xiii.,  in  which  Paul  defends  his  own 
apostleship.  Cf.  also  Gal.  i.  8  sq. ;  Rev.  ii.  2 ;  Didache,  XI. 

4  See  above,  p.  45  sq. 


THE  DEVELOPING   CHURCH  651 

thus  to  the  extension  of  the  kingdom  ;  but  they  did  it 
not  because  they  were  elected  or  appointed  to  the  office 
of  missionary  or  apostle,  but  because  they  were  impelled 
thereto  by  the  Spirit.  Accordingly,  whatever  authority 
they  exercised  in  the  church  was  a  purely  spiritual  author- 
ity, and  depended  always  upon  the  recognition  of  their 
divine  commission  and  endowment  by  their  brethren.  That 
their  influence  was  great  wherever  their  apostolic  character 
was  recognized,  and  especially  in  the  churches  which  they 
had  themselves  founded,  of  course  goes  without  saying,1 
and  that  they  were  in  a  position  not  simply  to  advise  and 
recommend,  but  even  to  utter  commands,  is  equally  clear.2 
But  there  existed  no  legal  relation  between  them  and  their 
converts  which  bound  the  latter  to  listen  to  them  and  obey 
them.  Only  because  they  were  conscious  that  they  were 
speaking  God's  word  could  they  demand  obedience,  and 
only  as  those  to  whom  they  spoke  recognized  the  same 
fact  could  they  expect  them  to  render  such  obedience.3 
The  test  of  the  truth  of  their  preaching  and  teaching  of 
course  could  not  always  be  found  in  the  content  of  that 
which  they  preached  and  taught.  Much  must  be  accepted 
by  those  who  heard  on  the  personal  authority  of  men  already 
tried  and  approved,  and  hence  the  authority  of  one  who  was 
recognized  as  an  apostle  must  be  greater  than  that  of  an 
ordinary  disciple,  and  the  authority  of  the  apostle  who  had 
first  preached  the  Gospel  in  a  city,  and  to  whom  the  dis- 
ciples owed  their  Christian  faith,  must  be  peculiarly  great 
and  lasting.  But  it  was  not  they  themselves,  it  was  the 
Master  whom  they  represented,  that  uttered  commands  and 
required  compliance. 

What  was  true  of  the  apostles  was  true  also  of  the 
prophets.  In  1  Cor.  xii.  28,  Paul  says,  "  And  God  hath 
set  some  in  the  church,  first  apostles,  secondly  prophets, 
thirdly  teachers  "  ;  and  the  prophets  who  are  thus  ranked 
next  to  the  apostles  are  mentioned  frequently  in  the  lit- 

1  Cf.  1  Cor.  iv.  14  sq. ;  Gal.  iv.  13  sq. 

2  Cf.  1  Cor.  v.  13,  vii.  6,  xi.  34,  xvi.  1 ;  2  Cor.  ii.  9,  etc. ;  also  Ignatius;  Trail. 
3,  Rom.  4.    Compare  also  1  Cor.  ix.  14,  and  Rom.  xiii.  2,  where  the  same  word 
diardffffeffdai  is  used  of  Christ  and  of  God. 

3  Cf.  1  Cor.  vii.  10,  xiv.  37;  2  Cor.  i.  24. 


652  THE   APOSTOLIC  AGE 

erature  of  our  period.1  It  is  evident  that  they  were  very 
numerous,  and  that  they  were  not  confined  to  the  churches 
founded  by  Paul.2  The  gift  of  prophecy,  as  we  have 
already  seen,3  was  exercised  not  exclusively  by  any  par- 
ticular class  in  the  church,  but  by  disciples  of  all  classes. 
At  the  same  time  there  were  those  who  possessed  the  gift 
in  an  eminent  degree,  and  who  exercised  it  so  frequently 
that  they  acquired  the  name  of  prophets  and  were  distin- 
guished thereby  from  the  brethren  in  general.  They  were 
not  simply  the  occasional  recipients  of  a  revelation ;  they 
were  in  possession  of  a  permanent  prophetic  gift,  which 
enabled  them  to  know  and  to  utter  the  will  and  truth  of 
God.  And  so,  like  the  apostles,  they  received  special 
honor  from  their  fellow-Christians  and  were  looked  to  for 
guidance  and  for  instruction.  They  possessed,  moreover, 
as  the  apostles  did,  a  large  measure  of  authority ;  not  be- 
cause of  any  official  position  or  rank,  but  simply  because 
they  were  the  mouthpiece  of  Christ,  whose  will  was  law  to 
his  church.  So  far  as  they  were  believed  to  speak  for 
him,  their  utterances  were  authoritative,  and  were  gladly 
heeded  by  the  faithful.  But  there  were  false  prophets  as 
well  as  true,  and  so  it  was  necessary  to  test  all  that  claimed 
to  be  prophets  before  accepting  their  declarations  as  the 
word  of  God;4  and  even  after  they  had  approved  them- 
selves it  was  not  their  authority  that  was  recognized, 
but  only  the  authority  of  the  Spirit  that  spoke  through 
them.  Even  true  prophets  might  speak  when  not  under 
the  influence  of  the  Spirit.  They  might  on  their  own  im- 
pulse instruct  or  advise  or  exhort  their  fellows,5  but  speak- 
ing thus  they  could  claim  nothing  more  than  the  respect 
and  attention  due  to  any  other  approved  disciple. 

That  the  prophets  are  uniformly  mentioned  after  the 
apostles  by  Paul  and  by  other  writers,  when  the  two 
classes  are  spoken  of  together,  does  not  mean  that  they 

1  Cf.  Acts  xi.  27.  xiii.  1,  xv.  32 ;  Rom.  xii.  6;  1  Cor.  xiv. ;  Eph.  ii.  20,  iii.  5,  iv. 
11 ;  Rev.  xxii.  <);  also  Matt.  x.  41,  xxiii.  34. 

2  See  above,  p.  527.  »  Ibid. 

<  Cf.  1  Cor.  xii.  10,  xiv.  29 ;  1  John  iv.  1  sq. ;  Didache,  XI. ;  Hermas:  Mand. 

Jvl. 

8  Cf.  1  Cor.  vii.  12,  25,  xiv.  37. 


THE  DEVELOPING   CHURCH 

held  an  official  rank  below  that  of  the  apostles,  for  neither 
they  nor  the  apostles  were  officers  in  the  church ;  but  it 
indicates  that  their  mission  was  regarded  as  less  exalted 
and  responsible  than  that  of  the  apostles.  All  the  apos- 
tles were  prophets,  endowed  by  the  Spirit  with  the  power 
to  proclaim  the  will  and  the  truth  of  God.  But  not  all 
prophets  were  apostles ;  for  the  latter  were  called  to  the 
special  and  much  more  laborious  and  self-sacrificing  work 
of  preaching  the  Gospel  and  planting  the  church  in  new 
territory.  Their  work  was  therefore  primary  and  funda- 
mental, and  their  dignity  as  founders  was  naturally  greater 
than  the  dignity  of  those  who  came  after  them.  But  it 
would  be  a  mistake  to  draw  hard  and  fast  lines  in  this 
connection ;  to  suppose  that  the  functions  of  the  apostles 
in  these  early  days  were  carefully  distinguished  from  the 
functions  of  the  prophets.  An  apostle  might  tarry  for  a 
longer  or  a  shorter  time,  or  might  even  take  up  his  resi- 
dence in  this  or  that  place  and  perform  what  was  practi- 
cally a  prophet's  work  there,  while  a  prophet  might  at  any 
time  be  called  to  do  the  work  of  an  apostle  and  to  carry 
the  Gospel  to  the  unevangelized  portions  of  the  world.1 
It  would  be  a  mistake,  moreover,  to  speak  of  the  relative 
authority  of  apostles  and  prophets,  regarding  the  former 
as  possessed  of  higher  authority  in  virtue  of  their  higher 

1  Paul  and  Barnabas,  who  were  prophets  in  the  church  at  Antioch,  were  sent 
out  to  do  the  work  of  apostles  (Acts  xiii.  1),  and  in  the  time  of  the  Didache 
prophets  travelled  about  from  church  to  church  as  well  as  apostles  (Didache, 
XI.,  XIII.).  On  the  other  hand,  Paul  not  simply  founded  churches,  but  watched 
over  their  fortunes  with  care  and  solicitude,  visiting  them  repeatedly,  and 
residing  in  some  places  for  a  considerable  length  of  time.  And  the  same  is  true 
of  others  to  whom  he  gives  the  name  "  apostles,"  as,  for  instance,  Barnabas, 
Apollos,  Timothy,  Andronicus,  and  Junias.  So  Peter  came  to  Rome  and  labored 
for  some  time  there,  though  Christianity  had  long  been  established  in  the  city ; 
and  so  John  resided  for  many  years  in  Ephesus.  Paul's  boast  that  he  had 
never  built  on  another  man's  foundation  does  not  imply  that  an  apostle  had 
no  right  to  preach  in  already  existing  churches,  but  simply  indicates  his  indi- 
vidual principle  of  action.  So  the  apostles  mentioned  in  the  Didache  did  not 
preach  solely  in  unevangelized  places,  but  went  about  from  church  to  church. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  Didache  represents  a  later  stage  of  development,  due 
clearly  to  the  prevalence  of  abuses,  when  it  insists  that  apostles  must  not 
remain  more  than  two  days  in  any  one  place  and  must  receive  only  their  bare 
subsistence,  while  the  prophets  are  permitted  to  settle  down  permanently 
wherever  they  please,  and  Christians  are  instructed  to  give  them  tithes  of  all 
their  property. 


654  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

rank.  The  only  authority  in  the  church  was  the  will  of 
Christ,  the  sole  head  of  the  church,  and  that  will  was 
absolute,  whether  uttered  by  apostle  or  by  prophet.  A 
conflict  of  authority  was  therefore  impossible.  The  apos- 
tle and  the  prophet  must  agree,  or  else  one  of  them  was 
speaking  of  himself  and  not  of  the  Spirit,  and  in  that 
case  he  had  no  authority  whatever.  Thus  a  prophet  might 
judge  an  apostle  or  an  apostle  a  prophet.  Thus,  indeed, 
any  Christian  possessed  of  the  Spirit  of  God  might  judge 
them  both.  Neither  the  one  nor  the  other  could  claim 
any  authority  of  his  own.1  If  the  influence  of  an  apostle 
was  greater  than  that  of  a  prophet  in  any  particular 
church,  or  in  the  church  at  large,  it  was  not  because  one 
was  an  apostle  and  the  other  only  a  prophet,  but  simply 
because  the  one  had  secured,  as  it  was  easy  under  ordi- 
nary circumstances  for  an  apostle  to  secure,  a  more  assured 
place  than  the  other  in  the  respect  and  confidence  of  his 
converts  and  of  his  brethren. 

In  the  passage  already  quoted  from  Paul's  First  Epistle 
to  the  Corinthians,  teachers  are  mentioned  in  the  third 
place  after  the  apostles  and  prophets.2  They,  too,  were 
common  in  the  early  church,  and  shared  in  the  honor  en- 
joyed by  the  apostles  and  prophets.  Their  function  was 
similar  to  the  function  of  the  prophet,  for  it  consisted  in 
the  impartation  of  spiritual  instruction ; 3  but  at  the  same 
time  there  was  a  marked  difference,  for  the  instruction 
given  by  them  was  the  fruit  of  thought  and  reflection,  and 
not  of  immediate  revelation.4  As  prophecy  was  a  gift 

1  The  reproof  administered  by  Paul  to  Peter  at  Antioch  (Gal.  ii.  11  sq.)  is 
an  illustration  of  the  principle.  Compare  also  1  Cor.  xiv.  37 ;  Didache,  XL,  etc. 

2  Cf .  also  Acts  xiii.  1 ;  Rom.  xii.  7 ;  Eph.  iv.  11 ;  Jas.  iii.  1 ;  Didache,  XIII. ; 
Hermas:  Sim.  IX.,  Vis.  III.,  etc.;  and  see  Harnack,  I.e.  S.  110,  note. 

8  It  will  not  do  to  draw  hard  and  fast  lines  here  any  more  than  in  connec- 
tion with  the  apostles  and  prophets.  All  prophets  were  in  a  sense  teachers, 
for  they  imparted  divine  truth.  But  not  all  teachers  were  prophets,  for  not 
all  of  them  received  immediate  revelations  from  God.  But  the  same  persons 
might,  and  doubtless  frequently  did,  impart  revelations,  and  also  give  their 
fellows  the  benefit  of  their  own  thought  and  reflection;  or,  in  other  words, 
exercised  both  the  gift  of  prophecy  and  the  gift  of  teaching  in  its  narrower 
sense.  Compare  Acts  xiii.  1;  1  Cor.  iv.  17  ;  1  Tim.  ii.  7;  2  Tim.  i.  11,  etc. ;  and 
the  epistles  of  Paul  in  general,  which  contain  both  immediate  revelations  and 
the  fruits  of  reflection. 

4  Upon  the  gift  of  teaching,  see  above,  p.  528  sq. 


THE  DEVELOPING  CHURCH  655 

which  was  not  confined  to  a  favored  few,  or  to  any  one 
class  within  the  church,  so  the  gift  of  teaching  might  also 
be  possessed  in  a  measure  by  all.  Thus  Paul  exhorts  the 
Colossians  to  teach  and  admonish  one  another,1  and  the 
author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  tells  his  readers  that 
they  ought  to  be  teachers  instead  of  mere  learners.2  And 
yet,  as  wisdom  and  experience  were  pre-eminently  required 
in  an  instructor,  the  number  of  those  endowed  with  the 
charisma  in  so  great  degree  as  to  entitle  them  to  be  called 
teachers,  must  have  been  limited;  and  hence  those  who 
did  possess  the  gift  in  so  large  measure  were  held  in 
high  honor,  and  were  regarded  with  the  greatest  respect 
and  deference.3  They  had  no  official  position  in  the 
church ;  they  were  no  more  officers  than  were  the  apos- 
tles and  prophets.  But  they  possessed  influence  and  exer- 
cised a  measure  of  authority  on  the  same  ground  as  the 
latter.  They,  too,  spoke  the  word  of  God,  and  it  was  that 
which  gave  their  utterances  weight.  At  the  same  time 
they  did  not  claim  to  utter  immediate  revelations,  and 
therefore  what  they  said  was  not  the  word  of  God  in  the 
same  sense  as  the  prophet's  message.  There  was  a  large 
human  element  in  it  which  the  prophet's  utterances  did 
not  have,  and  for  that  reason  their  words  carried  less 
weight  than  the  latter's,  and  their  dignity  and  authority 
were  not  as  great  as  his.  It  is  thus  easy  to  understand 
why  in  the  literature  of  the  period  they  should  be  com- 
monly mentioned  after  the  apostles  and  prophets.  And 
yet  their  practical  influence  in  the  conduct  of  the  church 
and  in  the  development  of  Christian  thought  and  life  was 
very  great.  They  were  endowed  from  on  high  with  wis- 
dom and  knowledge,4  —  a  permanent  gift,  —  which  fitted 
them  always  to  instruct  and  edify  the  church,  while  the 
prophet  might  receive  his  revelations  only  occasionally,  and 
at  other  times  have  nothing  to  impart  to  his  brethren.  And 

i  Col.  iii.  16.  2  Heb.  v.  12. 

3  Compare  the  words  of  the  author  of  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  who  disclaims 
the  right  to  speak  as  a  teacher  (chaps,  i.  and  iv.).    Cf.  also  Didache,  XIII., 
where  it  is  said  that  the  teacher,  like  the  prophet,  deserves  to  be  supported 
by  the  church. 

4  \6yos  ffoflas  and  \6yos  yvuxreus,  1  Cor.  xii.  8. 


656  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

so  even  after  the  enthusiastic  age  of  the  church  had  passed, 
and  when  the  consciousness  of  the  immediate  presence  of 
the  Spirit  was  no  longer  vivid  and  widespread,  and  when 
there  were  no  more  prophets  to  impart  new  revelations 
from  God,  the  gift  of  teaching  continued  to  find  exercise, 
and  Christians  looked  to  those  who  possessed  it  for  the 
instruction  and  guidance  which  they  had  formerly  received 
from  apostles  and  prophets  as  well. 

The  apostles,  prophets,  and  teachers,  whom  we  have  been 
considering,  all  belonged  to  the  church  at  large,  and  not 
merely  to  some  local  congregation.1  The  apostles  might 
be  the  only  ones  who  spent  their  lives  in  travelling  about 
from  place  to  place ;  but  the  prophets  and  teachers  also, 
even  though  they  may  have  remained  commonly  in  a  single 
city,  had  their  significance  for  the  general  church,  and  not 
for  the  local  congregation  alone.  If  they  were  endowed 
with  the  gift  of  prophecy  or  of  teaching,  that  gift  was  good 
everywhere,  and  they  were  at  liberty  to  exercise  it  in  any 
church.  Not  that  they  had  an  absolute  right  to  do  so,  and 
could  insist  that  a  congregation  should  listen  to  them 
whether  it  would  or  no ; 2  but  every  congregation  would 
gladly  listen  if  they  had  the  Spirit  and  could  utter  God's 
word,  and  their  utterances,  whenever  their  inspired  char- 
acter was  recognized,  must  have  the  same  weight  in  one 
part  of  Christendom  as  in  another. 

The  apostles,  prophets,  and  teachers  were,  of  all  the 
Christian  brethren,  the  ones  who  were  held  in  highest 
honor  by  the  early  church,  and  their  honor  was  due  to  the 
fact  that  they  proclaimed  the  word  of  God.  Thus,  the 
author  of  the  Didache  says,  "  My  child,  him  that  speaketh 
unto  thee  the  word  of  God  3  thou  shalt  remember  night  and 
day,  and  thou  shalt  honor  him  as  the  Lord  " ;  and  from  the 
eleventh,  thirteenth,  and  fourteenth  chapters  it  is  clear  that 

1  Cf.,  for  instance,  Didache,  XL,  XIII.;  Hermas:  Vis.  II.  4;  and  see  Har- 
nack,  I.e.  S.  100  sq. 

2  Only  those  whom  the  congregation  permitted  could  take  part  in  the  ser- 
vices.   Cf.  1  Thess.  v.  19;  1  Cor.  xiv. ;  Didache,  X.    Not  only  was  the  church 
to  judge  those  who  claimed  to  be  inspired,  but  also  to  regulate  their  speaking 
as  occasion  demanded.     See  above,  p.  5'24. 

"  TOV  XaXoCfToy  <roi  rbv  \6yov  TOV  deov.     Didache,  IV. 


THE  DEVELOPING  CHURCH  657 

the  apostles,  prophets,  and  teachers  were  the  ones  who  thus 
spoke  the  word  of  the  Lord  and  were  to  receive  chief 
honor.1  But  not  only  were  they  the  honored  ones  among 
the  disciples,2  they  were  also  naturally,  and  necessarily,  the 
leaders  of  the  church.3  But  their  leadership  involved 
many  things.  As  men  especially  inspired  of  God,  they 
must  be  the  natural  guides  of  the  church  in  all  its  spiritual 
activities.  But  the  church  had  no  activities  which  were 
not  spiritual,  and  hence  their  controlling  influence  must  be 
felt  in  every  department  of  the  church's  life.4  Upon  them, 
for  instance,  must  devolve  commonly  the  direction  of  the 
religious  services.  Free  and  informal  though  those  ser- 
vices were  in  the  earliest  days,  no  one  was  supposed  to 
take  part  in  them  unless  he  was  prompted  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  had  something  to  communicate  for  the  spiritual 
good  of  those  about  him.  But  the  apostles,  prophets,  and 
teachers  must  ordinarily  have  more  to  impart  than  the 
believers  in  general,  and  they  must  be  better  able  to  judge 
whether  the  utterances  of  others  were  truly  spiritual  and 
calculated  truly  to  edify  the  church.  Thus  there  must 
devolve  upon  them,  especially,  not  only  the  duty  of  contrib- 
uting spiritual  food,  but  also  the  duty  of  exercising  control 
wherever  control  was  needed,  as  it  was  in  Corinth,  and  as 
it  must  have  been  everywhere  at  an  early  day. 

But  an  important  part  of  the  religious  services  of  the 
primitive  church  was  the  giving  of  alms  for  the  support  of 

1  Paul  says  in  1  Cor.  xii.  28:   "First  apostles,  secondly  prophets,  thirdly 
teachers,"  thus  ranking  them  above  all  other  Christians. 

2  The  TeriMptvot,  as  the  Didache  calls  them  (Chap.  XV.). 

3  The  -}]yov/ji.€voL,  as  they  are  called  in  Heb.  xiii.  7,  where  it  is  said,  "  Remem- 
ber your  leaders  who  spake  unto  you  the  word  of  God."    Cf.  also  Acts  xv.  22, 
32,  where  Judas  and  Silas  are  called  rjyotfjxvoi  in  the  one  case,  and  irpo<f>r)rai 
in   the  other;  and  Clement:   Ad   Cor.   1,  21.    The  yyotfjievoi  mentioned  in 
Heb.  xiii.  7  are  not  to  be  identified  with  the  rjyov/jLevoi  of  vss.  17  and  24.    The 
reference  in  vs.  7  is  apparently  to  the  apostles  and  prophets  who  first  preached 
the  Gospel  to  those  addressed,  while  in  vss.  17  and  24  there  can  be  little  doubt, 
in  view  of  the  late  date  of  the  epistle  and  the  implication  that  those  spoken 
of  belong  to  the  church  addressed,  that  the  reference  is  to  such  rulers  as  are 
elsewhere  called  bishops. 

4  Cf.,  for  instance,  Paul's  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  where  instruction 
is  given  for  the  ordering  not  simply  of  the  life  of  the  individual,  but  also  of 
the  services  of  the  church.     See  also  Clement's  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians 
with  its  directions  concerning  the  government  of  the  church,  and  the  Shepherd 
of  Hennas  with  its  directions  concerning  penance. 

2u 


658  THE   APOSTOLIC    AGE 

the  brethren  that  were  in  need.  Such  gifts  were  thought 
of  from  the  very  beginning  as  offerings  to  God,  and  not 
merely  to  men ;  the  act  of  charity  was  a  religious,  not 
simply  a  humane  act.1  The  brethren  were  helped  prima- 
rily, not  because  they  were  needy,  but  because  they  were 
brethren,  —  members  of  the  one  body  of  Christ,  —  and  in 
serving  them  a  Christian  served  his  Lord  and  Master.  The 
distribution  of  the  offerings,  therefore,  would  most  naturally 
devolve  upon  the  inspired  persons  in  the  church,  —  upon 
those  who  were  God's  representatives  in  an  especial  sense, 
and  were  acquainted  with  his  will.  And  so,  in  the  church 
of  Jerusalem,  the  matter  was  originally  in  the  hands  of  the 
apostles,  and  when  they  needed  to  be  released,  men  "  full 
of  the  Spirit  and  of  wisdom,"  that  is,  other  inspired  men, 
were  selected  to  take  their  place.2 

So,  also,  in  the  matter  of  discipline,  the  apostles',  prophets, 
and  teachers  naturally  exercised  a  controlling  influence. 
The  word,  which  it  was  their  function  to  proclaim,  con- 
cerned not  simply  belief,  but  conduct  as  well,  and  ij;  was 
to  them,  consequently,  that  Christians  looked  for  a  knowl- 
edge of  the  will  of  God  which  they  were  to  observe,  and 
it  was  upon  them,  for  the  same  reason,  that  the  duty  de- 
volved of  warning  and  reproving  those  who  did  not  live 
aright,  and  in  extreme  cases,  of  taking  steps  to  have  them 
excluded  from  Christian  fellowship.3  They  knew  better 
than  others  the  will  of  God  for  any  particular  offender ; 
they  knew  better  than  others  whether  admonition,  or  re- 
buke, or  some  severer  punishment  should  be  administered. 

Thus  inspiration  to  declare  the  word  of  God  meant 
inspiration  to  lead  the  church  in  many  lines ;  in  fact,  in  all 
its  varied  activities.  So  far  therefore  as  the  church  in 
its  earliest  days  had  any  rulers  except  Christ,  it  had  them 
in  the  apostles,  prophets,  and  teachers  who  have  been  de- 

1  Cf -  Acts  v.  3,  where  Peter  tells  Ananias  that  he  has  sinned  not  against 
man,  but  against  God.    Cf.  also  Phil.  iv.  18,  where  the  Philippians'  gifts  to 
Paul  are  spoken  of  as  a  sacrifice  to  God. 

2  Acts  vi.  1  sq.    Cf.  also  Didache,  XIV.,  where  the  firstfruits  are  given  to 
the  prophets,  certainly  not  solely  for  their  own  use,  but  also  for  distribution 
to  the  needy. 

a  Cf .  1  Cor.  iv.  21,  v.  3  sq. ;  2  Cor.  xiii.  2 ;  Gal.  vi.  1 ;  1  Thess.  ii.  11 ;  1  Tim 
v.  1,  20 ;  2  Tim.  iv.  2 ;  Tit.  iii.  10,  etc. 


THE   DEVELOPING   CHUKCH  659 

scribed.1  But  their  rule  was  purely  spiritual,  as  has  been 
seen,  and  depended  not  on  human  appointment  or  election, 
nor  upon  the  existence  of  any  official  or  legal  relation 
between  them  and  other  Christians,  but  simply  upon  their 
own  belief  and  the  belief  of  their  brethren  that  they  were 
commissioned  by  God  to  speak  for  him.2 

But  what  if  there  were  no  apostles,  prophets,  and  teach- 
ers ?  What  if  at  any  time  the  Christians  of  a  particular 
city  should  have  among  them  no  one  especially  endowed 
with  the  teaching  charisma ;  no  one  immediately  called  of 
God  to  do  the  work  of  an  apostle,  prophet,  or  teacher? 
That  such  a  contingency  might  arise  occasionally,  and 
with  increasing  frequency  as  time  passed  and  the  number 
of  churches  multiplied,  goes,  of  course,  without  saying. 
There  could  not  be  apostles  everywhere  and  all  the  time, 
even  though  their  number  was  great;  and  although  in 
Corinth  there  might  be  a  large  number  of  prophets,  as 
there  were  when  Paul  wrote,  there  may  well  have  been 
many  churches,  especially  after  the  original  enthusiasm 
had  somewhat  cooled,  in  which  they  were  not  always 
present.  The  Didache,  indeed,  in  the  early  part  of  the 
second  century  distinctly  contemplates  such  a  condition 
of  affairs.3  And,  of  course,  what  was  true  of  prophets 
might  also  be  true  of  teachers ;  and  what  was  true  in  the 
churches  addressed  by  the  author  of  the  Didache  might  be 
true  in  other  churches,  and  at  an  earlier  time  as  well.  But 
as  soon  as  such  a  contingency  arose  anywhere,  the  need 

1  The  common  distinction  between  the  functions  of  teaching  and  ruling 
will  not  hold  for  these  earliest  days.    The  teachers  ruled  just  because  they 
were  teachers,  and  they  ruled  by  teaching ;  that  is,  by  declaring  the  will  of 
God. 

2  Rebuke  and  denunciation  could  have  no  effect,  unless  it  was  recognized 
as  uttered  in  accordance  with  the  divine  will.    And  so  the  power  to  exclude 
from  Christian  fellowship  lay  not  with  the  apostles,  or  the  prophets,  or  the 
teachers,  but  with  the  church.     (Compare,  for  instance,  1  Cor.  v.  5  sq.,  13; 
2  Cor.  ii.  6.)    Not  that  the  church  ruled  itself,  but  that  Christ  alone  was  sov- 
ereign, and  that  his  disciples,  so  far  as  they  were  true  to  him,  would  act  only 
under  his  direction  and  would  withdraw  their  fellowship  from  any  one  only 
when  they  believed  that  Christ  wished  them  to  do  so.    The  church  in  these 
days  was  not  a  democracy,  it  was  an  absolute  monarchy,  but  Christ,  and 
Christ  alone,  was  Kins:. 

3  nirlache,  XIII. :  "  The  firstfruits  ye  shall  give  to  the  prophets.  .  .  .    But 
if  ye  have  no  prophets,  give  to  the  poor." 


660  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

must  be  felt  of  providing  in  some  other  way  for  the  per- 
formance of  those  duties  which  ordinarily  devolved  upon 
the  apostles,  prophets,  and  teachers. 

Those  duties  were  manifold,  but  among  them  none  de- 
manded more  regular  attention  than  the  collection  and 
distribution  of  the  alms,  which  constituted  an  essential 
part  of  Christian  worship.  Only  as  the  varying  wants  of 
all  the  needy  brethren  were  known  could  the  charity  of 
the  church  be  wisely  and  helpfully  dispensed.  Even 
where  apostles,  prophets,  or  teachers  were  on  the  ground, 
it  might  be  difficult  for  them  always  to  give  to  the  matter 
the  attention  which  it  required ;  and  so  we  find  the  apos- 
tles in  Jerusalem  recommending,  at  an  early  day,  the 
selection  of  seven  men  to  whom  the  matter  might  be 
entrusted,  and  they  thus  be  left  free  to  devote  themselves 
more  exclusively  to  the  preaching  of  the  word.1  What 
happened  in  Jerusalem  may  well  have  happened  in  other 
places  also,  and  especially  where  the  apostles,  prophets, 
and  teachers  were  coming  and  going,  and  there  was  no 
certainty  that  the  permanent  presence  of  any  of  them 
could  be  counted  upon.  The  need,  in  fact,  must  have 
been  very  widely  felt  at  an  early  day  of  making  some 
provision  for  the  regular  and  official  discharge  of  at  least 
this  important  function  of  the  church's  life. 

It  was  very  likely  this  need  more  than  any  other  which 
gave  rise  to  the  earliest  bishops.  They  are  mentioned  for 
the  first  time  in  the  salutation  of  Paul's  Epistle  to  the 
Philippians,  and  it  is  a  significant  fact  that  that  letter  was 
primarily  a  note  of  thanks  for  gifts  sent  to  Paul  by  the 
Philippian  church.  So  Clement  in  his  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians  says,  "It  will  be  no  light  sin  for  us  if  we 
thrust  out  those  who  have  offered  the  gifts  of  the  bishop's 
office  unblamably  and  holily";2  and  Justin  Martyr,  a  gen- 
eration later,  expressly  declares  that  the  president  (by 
whom  he  evidently  means  the  bishop)  receives  and  dis- 
penses the  alms  offered  at  the  Eucharistic  service.3  But 
it  was  not  this  need  alone  that  gave  rise  to  bishops,  and 

1  Acts  vi.  1  sq,    3ee  above,  p.  77  sq.  2  Clement :  Ad  Cor.  44. 

»  Justin :  Apol.  I.  67, 


THE   DEVELOPING    CHURCH  661 

it  is  a  mistake  to  confine  the  attention  too  exclusively  to 
this  point,  as  has  frequently  been  done.  The  need  must 
also  have  been  widely  felt  at  an  early  day  of  putting  into 
the  hands  of  competent  men  the  responsibility  for  the 
proper  conduct  of  the  religious  services  of  the  church,  and 
especially  of  the  Eucharistic  service,  which  was  most  im- 
portant of  all.  When  the  services  began  to  take  on  a 
formal  character,  we  do  not  know;  but  the  influences 
which  must  ultimately  lead  to  the  repression  of  the  origi- 
nal freedom  were  at  work  at  an  early  day,  and  already 
before  the  end  of  the  first  century  the  stereotyping  process 
was  well  under  way.1  But,  of  course,  where  order  and 
form  were  emphasized,  the  need  of  leaders  to  conduct  the 
services,  and  to  see  that  such  form  and  order  were  properly 
observed,  would  naturally  be  felt.  So  long  as  apostles, 
prophets,  and  teachers  were  on  the  ground,  all  was  well ; 
but  in  their  absence  there  must  be  others  found  to  take 
their  place.  And  so  bishops  arose  to  meet  this  need  also, 
and  it  fell  to  their  lot  not  simply  to  receive  and  dispense 
alms,  but  to  preside  at  the  religious  services  as  well.2 

But  the  requirements  of  ecclesiastical  discipline  also 
contributed  to  the  rise  of  bishops,  making  necessary  the 
appointment  of  men  charged  with  a  special  responsibility, 
which  had  originally  devolved  chiefly  upon  the  apostles, 
prophets,  and  teachers.  The  inspiration  of  the  latter,  as 
has  been  already  seen,  fitted  them  above  all  others  to  exer- 
cise control  in  the  matter  of  discipline.  But  as  time 
passed,  and  such  inspired  men  grew  relatively  fewer,  the 
need  of  the  careful  and  faithful  administration  of  disci- 
pline only  increased,  and  with  it  the  need  of  men  espe- 
cially charged  with  its  oversight.  It  is  an  interesting  fact 
that  in  the  Didache,  where  the  churches  addressed  are 
especially  directed  to  appoint  bishops  and  deacons,  the 
reason  given  for  such  appointment  is  that  the  Eucharist 
may  be  kept  pure,  or,  in  other  words,  that  unworthy 
men  may  be  excluded  from  participation  in  the  sacred 

1  Cf.  Didache,  VII.,  IX.  sq. ;  and  see  above,  p.  525. 

2  Compare  Didache,  XV.  1,  where  the  needs  of  the  Eucharistic  service  lead  to 
the  appointment  of  the  bishops  and  deacons.      Compare  also  Justin :   Apol. 
1.67. 


662  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

service.1  And  so  in  1  Tim.  iii.  4  sq.,  the  fact  is  empha- 
sized that  it  is  a  bishop's  duty  to  rule  in  the  church  and 
to  exercise  discipline  when  discipline  is  needed.2 

The  bishops  thus  constituted  the  successors,  or,  better, 
the  substitutes  of  the  apostles,  prophets,  and  teachers  in 
the  performance  of  the  varied  and  responsible  functions 
which  have  been  described.  They  owed  their  existence 
to  the  fact  that  men  especially  inspired  to  declare  the  will 
of  God  were  not  always  on  hand,  and  therefore  could  not 
always  be  depended  upon  by  the  Christians  of  any  particu- 
lar city  for  the  needed  direction  and  leadership.  In  the 
absence  of  such  inspired  men  the  church  did  the  best  thing 
it  could.  It  looked  to  the  most  thoroughly  tried  and 
trusted  disciples  it  had  to  take  their  place.  But  it  goes 
without  saying  that  such  men  were  to  be  found  commonly 
among  the  more  mature  and  experienced  brethren ;  among 
those  who  were  oldest,  not  necessarily  in  years,  but  in 
length  of  Christian  service.  From  the  beginning,  the  dis- 
ciples fell  naturally  into  two  classes,  —  the  older  and  the 
younger, — -and  so  far  as  the  latter  were  not  distinguished 
by  special  inspiration,  which  made  them  apostles,  prophets, 
or  teachers,  they  were  inferior  in  dignity  and  influence  to 
the  former,  and  instinctively  looked  to  them,  in  the  absence 
of  inspired  men,  as  their  guides  and  leaders.  The  Chris- 
tian life  itself  was  universally  regarded  as  a  gift  of  God, 
and  the  man  who  had  proved  himself  a  true  disciple  of 
Christ  by  a  long  life  of  faithful  and  devoted  service  must 
be  in  possession  of  a  large  measure  of  the  Spirit,  and  must 
be  especially  qualified  to  instruct  and  lead  the  younger 
and  less  experienced  believers,  who  had  not  yet  been  so 
long  and  so  thoroughly  tried  as  he.3  And  so,  when  the 
church  needed  leaders  in  place  of  the  inspired  apostles, 
prophets,  and  teachers,  it  found  them  naturally  among 
the  older  and  more  mature  disciples. 

1  Compare  Chap.  XIV.  with  XV.  1.     The  qualification  of  gentleness,  or 
meekness  which  is  mentioned  first  among  those  required  of  the  bishops  in 
XV.  1,  doubtless  has  special  significance  in  this  connection. 

2  Compare  also  Titus  i.  6,  7 ;  Acts  xx.  28,  31 ;  Clement :  Ad  Cor.  42-44. 

8  An  illustration  of  this  belief  is  found  in  the  large  measure  of  control 
which  the  confessors,  that  is,  those  who  had  endured  persecution  for  their 
Christian  faith,  exercised  in  the  church  of  the  second  and  third  centuries. 


THE  DEVELOPING   CHURCH  663 

But  not  all,  even  of  the  tried  and  experienced  Christians, 
were  equally  fitted  to  perform  all  the  functions  that  have 
been  described,  and  it  was  inevitable,  especially  where 
there  were  many  such  Christians,  that  some  of  their  num- 
ber should  seem  to  be  more  especially  set  apart  by  the 
Spirit  for  the  work  that  needed  to  be  done  ;  and  that  the 
church  should  therefore  ratify  the  divine  will  by  appoint- 
ing them  to  do  a  particular  service,  and  by  laying  upon 
them  the  responsibility  for  its  regular  and  efficient  per- 
formance. Thus  it  came  about  that  some  of  the  elder 
brethren,  whether  more  or  fewer,  were  made  bishops.  As 
soon  as  that  happened,  a  distinction  existed  between  bishops 
and  elders.  But  it  is  a  mistake  to  suppose  that  the  dis- 
tinction was  the  same  as  that  which  existed  in  the  second 
century,  when  bishops  and  presbyters  were  both  ecclesias- 
tical officers,  charged  each  with  their  own  separate  func- 
tions ;  for  the  elders  or  presbyters,  in  the  period  with 
which  we  are  dealing,  were  not  officers  in  any  sense. 
They  were  not  men  appointed  for  any  service.  They 
were  simply  the  older  and  more  mature  disciples ;  natu- 
rally honored  by  their  younger  and  less  experienced  breth- 
ren, but  holding  no  official  position  of  any  kind.  But  that 
being  the  case,  it  is  equally  a  mistake  to  deny  all  dis- 
tinction between  bishops  and  elders,  and  to  regard  them 
as  identical  in  the  primitive  church.  The  truth  is,  that 
though  all  bishops  were  elders,  because  chosen  from  the 
more  mature  and  experienced  brethren,  not  all  elders  were 
bishops  by  any  means.1 

i  The  unofficial  character  of  the  elders,  during  the  period  with  which  we 
are  dealing,  appears  from  the  contrast  which  is  drawn  between  them  and  the 
younger  brethren  (the  j/eoi)  in  1  Pet.  v.  5;  1  Tim.  v.  1 ;  Titus  ii.  2  sq. ;  Clem- 
ent: Ad  Cor.  I,  3,  21 ;  and  from  the  fact  that  where  the  several  officers  of  the 
church  are  enumerated  bishops  and  deacons  are  mentioned,  but  never  presby- 
ters (so  in  Phil.  i.  1 ;  1  Tim.  iii. ;  Clement :  Ad  Cor.  42,  44;  Didache,  XV.).  On 
the  other  hand,  Acts  xiv.  23,  Titus  i.  5,  and  Clement:  Ad  Cor.  54  ("Only 
let  the  flock  of  Christ  be  at  peace  with  its  appointed  elders  "),  seem  to  imply 
that  the  elders  were  regularly  appointed  officers  of  the  church.  But  in  the 
light  of  the  passages  in  Clement's  epistle,  already  referred  to,  it  is  evident  that 
in  chap.  54  the  "appointed  elders"  must  be  the  bishops  whom  the  author 
speaks  of  elsewhere,  and  cannot  be  the  same  as  the  elders  in  general,  of  whom 
he  also  speaks  frequently. 

There  were  thus  in  Corinth,  when  Clement  wrote,  both  elders  and  "ap- 
pointed elders,"  the  latter  being  the  bishops,  who  were  taken  from  among  the 


664  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGE 

But  the  fact  that  the  bishops  were  taken  from  the  elder 
brethren  explains,  as  it  could  not  otherwise  be  explained, 
the  historic  relation  which  they  sustained  to  teaching  in 
the  narrow  and  specific  sense  of  that  word.  The  chief 
function  of  the  apostles,  prophets,  and  teachers  was  to  de- 
clare the  will  and  truth  of  God  for  the  instruction  of  their 
brethren.  It  was  because  they  were  endowed  with  the 
power  to  do  it,  that  the  leadership  of  the  church,  in  all  its 
varied  functions,  devolved  upon  them.  But  after  them, 
the  more  mature  and  experienced  disciples  must  be  best 
fitted  to  impart  the  information  as  to  God's  will  and  truth 
which  the  church  needed ;  for  they  had  passed  through  a 
longer  tutelage  than  their  brethren;  they  had  heard  the 
word  preached  by  inspired  apostles,  prophets,  and  teachers 
year  after  year,  and  their  memory  reached  back  to  earlier 
days,  and  brought  down  into  the  present  a  knowledge  of 
the  utterances  of  messengers  of  God  long  since  departed. 
In  the  absence,  therefore,  of  special  and  immediate  revela- 
tions or  of  any  one  commissioned  to  impart  new  truth,  their 
wide  and  long  familiarity  with  the  truth  of  God  revealed 
by  inspired  men  of  the  past,  as  well  as  of  the  present,  must 
lead  their  brethren  to  look  to  them  for  the  instruction 
which  was  always  needed.  And  so  the  teaching  function, 

elders,  and  might  therefore  be  called  simply  "  elders,"  or,  to  distinguish  them 
from  the  others  who  had  no  official  position,  "  appointed  elders."  In  the  light 
of  Clement's  use  of  the  two  words,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  presby- 
ters of  Acts  xiv.  23  and  of  Titus  i.  5  are  to  be  understood  in  the  same  way. 
Titus  was  not  directed  to  appoint  men  to  the  office  of  elder,  but  to  appoint 
elders  to  office,  that  is,  as  i.  7  indicates,  to  the  office  of  bishop.  And  so  the 
author  of  the  Acts  did  not  mean  that  Paul  and  Barnabas  made  men  elders,  — 
they  were  elders  already,  — but  that  they  made  officers  out  of  elders,  i.e. 
appointed  certain  of  the  elder  brethren  to  official  position  in  the  churches 
which  they  planted.  That  the  author  did  not  give  them  the  name  "  bishops  " 
is  of  a  piece  with  his  course  in  connection  with  the  Seven.  He  was  careful 
not  to  give  the  latter  any  specific  name,  and  he  was  equally  careful  to  avoid 
a  definite  title  in  the  present  case.  He  assumed  that  rulers  were  appointed 
by  Paul  and  Barnabas,  but  he  did  not  venture  to  identify  them  with  any  par- 
ticular ecclesiastical  officers  of  his  own  day.  The  "  elders  that  rule  well  "  of 
1  Tim.  v.  17  are  doubtless  also  to  be  regarded  as  "  appointed  elders,"  or 
bishops.  The  author,  in  speaking  of  the  elder  brethren  in  general,  and  of  the 
treatment  to  be  accorded  them,  directs  that  double  honor  be  paid  to  such 
elders  as  rule  well,  i.e.  to  such  as  exercise  faithfully  the  bishop's  office,  of 
which  he  had  already  spoken  earlier  in  his  epistle.  On  the  unofficial  character 
o'f  the  primitive  elders,  see  especially  Weizsiicker,  I.e.  S.  617  sq.  (Eng.  Trans., 
II.  p.  330),  and  Sohm,  I.e.  S.  92  sq. 


THE   DEVELOPING   CHURCH  665 

as  well  as  the  functions  of  dispensing  the  charity  of  the 
church,  of  leading  the  religious  services,  and  of  adminis- 
tering discipline,  belonged  to  the  bishops  from  the  begin- 
ning. When  the  inspired  apostles,  prophets,  and  teachers 
were  absent,  they  were  their  substitutes,  so  far  as  substi- 
tutes were  needed,  for  the  performance  of  all  the  duties 
which  had  commonly  devolved  upon  the  former.  But 
the  instruction  which  the  bishops  gave  was  distinguished 
by  its  traditional  character.  They  could  impart  only 
what  they  had  received  from  others,  and  the  value  of 
their  instruction  must  depend  wholly  upon  the  faithful- 
ness with  which  they  reproduced  what  they  had  heard. 
Thus  it  came  about  that  it  was  regarded  as  their  func- 
tion not  to  impart  fresh  truth,  but  to  conserve  the  truth 
imparted  by  others,  by  inspired  apostles,  prophets,  and 
teachers  of  their  own  and  earlier  days.  And  thus  it  came 
about  that  when  the  line  was  finally  drawn,  as  it  was 
before  the  end  of  the  second  century,  between  the  apos- 
tolic and  all  subsequent  ages,  and  the  apostles,  in  the 
narrower  sense,  were  regarded,  along  with  the  Old  Testa- 
ment prophets,  as  the  sole  recipients  of  God's  revelations, 
the  bishops  could  be  thought  of  quite  naturally,  and  with- 
out any  apparent  violation  of  historic  fact,  as  the  deposi- 
taries of  the  teaching  of  the  apostles,  and  the  authoritative 
exponents  and  expounders  of  apostolic  truth.1 

The  date  of  the  appointment  of  the  earliest  bishops  we 
do  not  know.  There  is  no  reference  to  them  in  the  epis- 
tles to  the  Galatians  and  Romans ;  and  what  is  still  more 
significant  there  is  none  in  the  epistles  to  the  Corinthians. 
Had  there  been  any  in  the  church  of  Corinth,  Paul  would 
certainly  have  referred  to  them  in  emphasizing  the  need 
of  conducting  the  religious  services  in  a  decent  and 
orderly  manner.  The  Corinthians,  to  be  sure,  are  directed 
to  be  in  subjection  to  all  those  who,  like  the  household  of 

1  It  is  interesting  to  notice  that  according  to  the  Didache,  X.  7,  only  the 
prophets  are  to  be  allowed  to  indulge  in  free  prayer,  —  a  spiritual  exercise  in 
an  eminent  sense,  —  while  others,  including  in  this  case  the  bishops  also,  are 
to  use  certain  prescribed  forms.  This  is  simply  an  indication  of  the  common 
belief  that  a  man  not  endowed  with  special  inspiration  must  confine  himself 
in  the  services  of  the  church  to  the  utterances  of  others  who  are  thus  endowed. 


666  THE  APOSTOLIC   AGfi 

Stephanas,  serve  and  labor  for  the  good  of  the  saints ;  * 
but  there  is  no  hint  that  such  persons  had  been  appointed 
to  any  office,  or  been  entrusted  with  any  special  work. 
The  passage,  however,  is  significant,  because  it  shows 
that  before  the  churches  began  to  appoint  officers  there 
were  those  who  took  it  upon  themselves  to  serve  in  vari- 
ous capacities,  and  whose  services  were  such  as  to  entitle 
them  to  peculiar  deference  and  to  a  large  measure  of  con- 
trol in  the  affairs  of  the  congregation.2  The  same  condi- 
tions existed  apparently  in  Thessalonica,  when  Paul  wrote 
his  first  epistle  to  that  church.  It  is  possible  that  the 
Trpoio-TafjLevoi,  to  whom  he  refers  in  v.  12,  had  been  regu- 
larly appointed  by  the  congregation;  but  his  exhorta- 
tion implies  rather  that  their  service  was  purely  voluntary, 
and  that  it  was  on  that  very  account  that  they  were  not 
receiving  the  honor  which  was  their  due.3  Light  is  thus 
thrown  upon  the  way  in  which  the  earliest  bishops  were 
selected.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  when  the  need  of 
regularly  appointed  officers  was  felt,  the  church  instinc- 
tively chose  those  who  had  proved  themselves,  by  their 
long  and  faithful  services,  best  fitted  to  discharge  the  re- 
quired functions.  Their  appointment,  in  fact,  was  very 
likely  nothing  more  in  the  beginning  than  a  tacit  recogni- 
tion by  the  brethren  of  their  call  to  serve  the  church  as 
they  were  already  doing,  and  only  gradually  did  such 
recognition  develop  into  regular  choice  and  induction  into 
an  office.  The  reference  in  Phil.  i.  1  to  the  two  classes, 
bishops  and  deacons,  seems  to  imply  that  there  were  al- 
ready ecclesiastical  officials  in  Philippi;  and  Clement's 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  shows  that  there  had  long  been 
regularly  appointed  bishops  and  deacons  both  in  Rome 

1 1  Cor.  xvi.  15. 

2  It  is  significant  also  that  Stephanas  and  his  household  were  the  first  con- 
verts of  Achaia,  and  thus  enjoyed  a  natural  pre-eminence  in  virtue  of  their 
Christian  maturity  and  experience. 

8  Rom.  xii.  8,  where  the  same  word  (TrpoiVrd/zfros)  is  used,  and  1  Cor.  xii. 
28  imply  that  the  function  of  ruling  or  governing  was  a  common  one  in  the 
church ;  but  in  Corinth  certainly,  and  in  Rome  probably,  there  were  no 
regularly  appointed  officers  at  that  time.  Such  officers,  however,  are  very 
likely  to  be  found  in  the  Tj-yovpevoi.  of  Heb.  xiii.  17  and  24.  See  above, 
p.  657. 


THE  DEVELOPING   CHURCH  667 

and  in  Corinth.1  It  would  seem  from  the  Didache,  on  the 
other  hand,  that  the  custom  of  appointing  such  officers, 
though  common,  was  not  universal  even  at  the  beginning 
of  the  second  century.2  Where  apostles  and  prophets 
were  as  numerous  as  they  were  in  the  churches  with 
which  the  author  of  the  Didache  was  acquainted,  it  was, 
of  course,  natural  that  the  official  development  should  be 
slower  than  in  some  other  parts  of  Christendom.  But  even 
in  places  where  the  need  of  officers  was  later  in  making 
itself  felt,  the  influence  of  other  parts  of  the  one  church 
of  Christ,  whose  unity  was  so  strongly  emphasized,  soon 
led  to  their  appointment,  and  before  the  middle  of  the 
second  century  there  were  bishops  (and  deacons)  almost 
everywhere.3 

But  it  would  be  a  mistake  to  think  of  these  bishops  as 
possessing  in  the  beginning  an  official  status  in  the  church, 
in  such  a  sense  that  they  had  an  absolute  right  to  bear 
rule,  and  could  insist  upon  the  obedience  and  submission 
of  their  brethren.  The  ability  to  rule  in  the  church 
was  as  much  a  charisma  or  divine  gift  as  the  ability  to 
teach  or  prophesy,4  and  if  any  one  was  appointed  to  the 

i  Cf .  Clement :  Ad  Cor,  42,  44.  2  Didache,  XV.  1. 

3  The  deacons,  who  are  commonly  mentioned  with  the  bishops  in  our 
sources  (Phil.  i.  1 ;  1  Tim.  iii.  8  sq. ;  Didache,  XV. ;  Clement :  Ad  Cor.  42),  were 
evidently  nothing  more  than  the  assistants  of  the  latter.    That  is  what  the 
literature  of  the  second  and  following  centuries,  in  which  their  relation  to 
the  bishops  is  explicitly  stated,  shows  them  to  have  been  then,  and  the  mean- 
ing of  the  title  itself,  and  the  fact  that  they  are  always  mentioned  after  bishops, 
and  that  no  additional  qualifications  are  demanded  of  them,  confirms  the 
assumption  that  they  were  the  same  from  the  beginning.     Our  second-cen- 
tury sources  show  that  they  assisted  the  bishop  in  the  conduct  of  the  Eucha- 
rist, in  the  dispensing  of  alms  by  informing  him  of  the  needs  of  the  brethren 
and  ministering  to  them  in  accordance  with  his  directions,  and  in  the  admin- 
istration of  discipline,  by  bringing  to  his  knowledge  such  offences  as  needed  at- 
tention.   As  they  were  servants,  or  assistants  simply,  not  rulers,  they  might  be 
taken  from  the  younger  brethren,  and  very  likely  commonly  were ;  but  they 
must  be  men  of  thoroughly  approved  character  (compare,  for  instance,  1  Tim. 
iii.  8  sq.  and  Didache,  XV.)-    In  the  Didache  the  qualifications  demanded 
are  the  same  for  both  bishops  and  deacons:   they  must  be  worthy  of  the 
Lord,  meek,  free  from  avarice,  true,  and  approved.     In  First  Timothy,  where 
the  qualifications  are  given  with  greater  fulness,  it  is  required  of  the  bishop, 
but  not  of  the  deacon,  that  he  shall  be  no  novice  or  neophyte  (i/e60uros). 

The  word  Sidicovos  is  used  some  thirty  times  in  the  New  Testament,  but  in 
an  official  sense  apparently  only  in  the  passages  already  referred  to  (Phil,  i 
1;  ITim.  iii.  8  and  12). 

4  Compare  1  Cor.  xii.  28  and  Rom.  xii.  8. 


668  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

office  of  bishop,  it  was  simply  because  it  was  believed  that 
he  had  been  called  by  God  to  such  office.1  The  appoint- 
ment was  originally  only  the  recognition  by  the  church  of 
his  possession  of  a  charisma  fitting  him  for  special  service. 
And  so  his  right  to  hold  office  and  to  discharge  its  duties 
was  dependent  upon  his  brethren's  recognition  of  his 
divine  call.  If  at  any  time  they  doubted  his  possession 
of  the  requisite  gifts ;  if  at  any  time  they  doubted  whether 
the  Holy  Spirit  was  with  him  authorizing  him  to  lead  the 
services,  to  dispense  alms,  to  administer  discipline,  to  pro- 
claim the  divine  truths  learned  from  God's  inspired  wit- 
nesses, —  they  could  refuse  to  permit  him  to  exercise  his 
functions,  and  could  refuse  to  follow  him  and  to  listen  to 
his  words.  His  right  was  thus  no  more  a  legal  right  than 
that  of  the  apostles,  prophets,  and  teachers.  He  was  sim- 
ply a  substitute  for  the  latter,  and  his  privileges  and  pre- 
rogatives were  no  greater  than  theirs  had  been.  .  Indeed, 
the  presence  of  an  apostle,  prophet,  or  teacher  might  at 
any  time  make  his  offices  entirely  unnecessary.  But  as 
time  passed,  and  the  duties  devolving  upon  the  bishops 
became  more  complicated  and  pressing,  and  the  need  of 
regularity  and  order  more  apparent,  it  was  inevitable  that 
a  feeling  should  grow  up  that  the  control  of  the  affairs 
of  a  particular  church  should  remain  permanently  in  the 
hands  of  its  bishops,  and  should  not  be  committed  to  such 
apostles,  prophets,  and  teachers  as  might  chance  to  appear, 
especially  since  they  were  growing  fewer  year  by  year.  It 
was  inevitable,  as  a  result  of  this,  that  the  bishops  should 
increasingly  regard  themselves,  and  be  regarded  by  their 
brethren,  as  possessed  of  certain  exclusive  rights  of  which 
they  ought  not  to  be  deprived.  This  feeling  we  first  find 
voiced  in  Clement's  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  where  he 
says,  "Those  [bishops],  therefore,  who  were  appointed  by 
them  [that  is,  by  the  apostles],  or  afterwards  by  other  men 

1  Compare  Acts  xx.  28:  "  Take  heed  unto  yourselves  and  to  all  the  flock  in 
the  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  youbishops."  It  may  be  doubted,  however, 
whether  tirlffKotroi  is  to  be  taken  in  this  passage  in  an  official  sense ;  whether  it 
is  not  rather  to  be  understood  in  the  sense  of  natural  overseers  upon  whom  a 
special  responsibility  devolved  because  of  their  age  and  maturity.  And  the 
doubt  is  confirmed  by  the  lack  of  a  reference  to  bishops  in  Eph.  iv.  11. 


THE   DEVELOPING   CHURCH  GG9 

of  repute  with  the  consent  of  the  whole  church,  and  have 
ministered  unblamably  to  the  flock  of  Christ  in  lowliness 
of  mind,  peacefully  and  with  all  modesty,  and  for  a  long 
time  have  borne  a  good  report  with  all,  these  men  we  con- 
sider to  be  unjustly  thrust  out  from  their  ministration. 
For  it  will  be  no  light  sin  to  us  if  we  thrust  out  those  who 
have  offered  the  gifts  of  the  bishop's  office  unblamably 
and  holily."  l  The  epistle  in  which  these  words  occur  was 
called  forth  by  the  existence  of  trouble  in  the  Corinthian 
church,  apparently  due  to  a  conflict  between  those  who 
believed  that,  when  men  possessed  of  special  inspiration 
were  on  hand,  they  should  take  precedence  even  of  the 
regular  officers  of  the  church,  and  should  have  the  con- 
duct of  the  religious  services,  together  with  the  man- 
agement of  the  charity  of  the  church;  and  those,  on 
the  other  hand,  who  maintained  that  the  duly  appointed 
officers  should  remain  constantly  in  full  control.  The 
majority  of  the  church  evidently  sympathized  with  the 
former,  and  the  result  was  that  some  of  the  bishops,  who 
made  a  stand  against  them,  were  deposed  from  office.  It 
was  under  these  circumstances  that  Clement's  epistle  was 
written  in  the  name  of  the  church  of  Rome.  It  is  in- 
structive to  notice  the  way  in  which  the  trouble  is  dealt 
with.  The  author  does  not  enter  at  all  into  the  merits  of 
the  particular  case  in  hand.  He  institutes  no  inquiry  as 
to  the  character  of  the  prophets  and  teachers  who  were 
the  cause  of  the  difficulty.  Evidently,  for  aught  he  knew 
to  the  contrary,  they  were  true  prophets,  and  their  teach- 
ing was  entirely  sound;  but  he  insists  that  in  any  case 
the  conduct  of  the  services  must  be  in  the  hands  of  the 
duly  appointed  officers,  and  no  one  has  a  right  to  take  any 
part  except  under  their  direction  or  with  their  consent. 
He  asserts  distinctly  that  the  church  is  subject  to  its 
officers  in  all  respects,  and  that  it  has  no  right  to  disobey 
or  to  rebel  against  them,  or  to  remove  them  from  office  so 
long  as  they  do  not  disgrace  their  position  by  immorality 
and  irreligion ;  and  he  bases  his  principle  not  upon  custom 
or  expediency,  or  anything  of  the  kind,  but  upon  the  will 
l  Clement :  Ad  Cor.  44. 


670  THE   APOSTOLIC   AGE 

of  God.  God  sent  forth  Christ,  Christ  sent  forth  the 
apostles,  and  they  in  turn  appointed  bishops  and  deacons, 
so  that  the  bishops  and  deacons  hold  their  office  by  divine 
right.1  The  significance  of  this  principle  for  the  subse- 
quent history  of  the  constitution  and  government  of  the 
church  can  hardly  be  overestimated.2  But  into  that  sub- 
sequent history  we  cannot  enter  here.  It  is  enough  to  see 
the  principle  clearly  and  explicitly  avowed  in  a  letter  sent 
by  the  church  of  Rome  to  the  church  of  Corinth  before 
the  end  of  the  first  century.  The  future  greatness  of  the 
church  of  Rome  was  already  foreshadowed,  not  simply  in 
the  interest  it  felt  in  the  fortunes  of  a  sister  church,  and 
in  the  responsibility  it  assumed  for  the  settlement  of  that 
church's  difficulties,  but  also  in  the  clearness  of  vision  and 
in  the  resoluteness  of  purpose  with  which  it  entered  upon 
that  development  in  which  it  has  always  led  the  world. 

The  bishops  and  deacons,  whom  we  have  been  consider- 
ing, did  not  belong  to  the  church  at  large  in  the  sense  in 
which  the  apostles,  prophets,  and  teachers  did.  They 
served  the  local  congregation  primarily,  not  the  universal 
church,  and  their  official  position  gave  them  no  rights  in 
other  congregations  than  their  own.  And  yet  the  local 
congregation  was  not  an  independent  and  separate  church ; 

1  It  was  in  accordance  with  this  principle  that  the  laying  on  of  hands,  or 
ordination,  came  finally  to  be  regarded  as  the  bestowal  of  special  divine 
grace  through  which  a  man  was  made  art  officer  by  God,  and  had  imparted 
to  him  an  indelible  character.    In  the  beginning  the  laying  on  of  hands  signi- 
fied nothing  of  the  sort.    In  the  apostolic  age  it  was  nothing  more  than 
the  public  recognition  of  a  person's  call  to  a  particular  service.    The  person 
was  supposed  to  have  the  grace  or  charisma  already.    It  was  the  possession 
of  it  which  constituted  his  call,  and  therefore  there  could  be  no  virtue  or 
efficacy  in  the  laying  on  of  hands  which  followed  (compare  Acts  vi.  3,  6, 
xiii.  1,3,  and  1  Tim.  iv.  14). 

The  laying  on  of  hands  is  mentioned  also  in  2  Tim.  i.  6,  where  hands  are 
laid  upon  Timothy  by  Paul ;  in  Acts  ix.  17,  where  hands  are  laid  upon  Paul 
immediately  after  his  conversion  by  Ananias,  an  ordinary  disciple;  and  in 
Acts  viii.  17  and  xix.  6,  where  hands  are  laid  upon  new  converts  by  apostles 
in  order  that  they  may  receive  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  the  last  two  passages  the 
later  conception  of  the  act  is  foreshadowed,  but  as  the  rite  of  confirmation, 
not  of  ordination. 

2  Cf.  Sohm,  I.e.  S.  157  sq.      Sohm  is  certainly  right  in   emphasizing  the 
importance  of  the  principle  voiced  in  Clement's  epistle,  but  he  goes  too  far 
when  he  makes  that  epistle  responsible   for  the  principle  itself  and  for  the 
results  to  which  it  led.    Clement  doubtless  simply  gave  utterance  to  a  prin- 
ciple already  recognized  generally  in  Rome  and  by  many  even  in  Corinth. 


THE   DEVELOPING   CHURCH  671 

it  was  only  a  manifestation  of  the  one  church  of  Christ, 
and,  as  such,  constituted  one  body  with  all  sister  congre- 
gations everywhere.  And  hence  the  conception  of  a  uni- 
versal episcopate  ruling  the  universal  church  was  a  natural 
outgrowth  of  the  conception  of  a  local  episcopate  ruling 
the  local  congregation.  But  the  conception,  though  im- 
plicitly wrapped  up  in  the  original  idea  of  the  bishops  as 
substitutes  or  successors  of  the  apostles,  prophets,  and 
teachers,  did  not  make  its  appearance  until  a  later  time. 

During  the  period  with  which  we  are  dealing  the 
churches,  so  far  as  we  are  acquainted  with  them,  were 
ruled  each  by  a  number  of  bishops.  The  substitution  of 
a  single  bishop  for  the  original  plurality  was  the  result 
of  a  process  which  followed  inevitably  upon  the  principle 
avowed  in  the  epistle  of  the  church  of  Rome  to  the  church 
of  Corinth ;  but  that  process  lies  beyond  our  horizon  and 
cannot  be  discussed  here.  Nor  can  we  enter  here  upon 
the  steps  by  which  the  elder  brethren  of  the  apostolic 
age  developed  into  the  official  presbyters  of  the  second 
and  following  centuries.1 

At  the  close  of  the  apostolic  age,  —  that  is,  at  the  close 
of  the  first  century,  —  we  find  at  least  some  churches  in 
possession  of  regularly  appointed  bishops  and  deacons,  and 
we  find  the  principle  already  accepted  in  some  quarters 
that  they  are  officers  in  the  strict  sense,  and  as  such  have 
a  right  to  exercise  the  functions  attaching  to  their  position, 
which  no  inspired  man,  nor  even  the  church  itself,  can 
deny  them,  except  on  the  ground  of  malfeasance  of  office. 
When  this  principle,  so  distinctly  voiced  by  Clement  of 
Rome,  was  adopted  by  the  church  at  large,  as  it  was  during 
the  second  century,  that  church  was  organized  in  a  true 
sense,  and  its  institutional  character  was  an  established 
fact.  The  change  from  the  original  condition  of  things 
was  stupendous,  but  the  process  by  which  the  change  was 
wrought  was  gradual  and  entirely  natural,  as  has  been 
seen.  It  did  not  mean  the  loss  of  the  primitive  belief  in 

1  Upon  the  rise  of  monarchical  episcopacy  and  upon  the  evolution  of  an 
official  eldership  out  of  the  unofficial  elder  brethren  of  the  earliest  days,  see 
especially  Sohm,  I.e.  S.  146  sq. 


672  THE   APOSTOLIC    AGE 

the  presence  of  the  Spirit,  and  in  the  special  inspiration 
of  certain  individuals  and  their  enjoyment  of  immediate 
revelations  from  on  high ;  but  it  did  mean  the  subjection 
of  spirit  to  law  and  of  the  individual  to  the  institution, 
and  thus  foreshadowed  the  rise  of  Catholicism. 


CHRONOLOGICAL  TABLE 

A.D. 

Death  of  Jesus c.  30. 

Death  of  Stephen 31  or  32. 

Conversion  of  Paul 31  or  32. 

Paul's  first  visit  to  Jerusalem 34  or  35. 

Paul  in  Syria  and  Cilicia after  35. 

Evangelization  of  Galatia  (Paul's  first  missionary 

journey) before  45. 

Death  of  Herod  Agrippa  1 44. 

Death  of  James  the  son  of  Zebedee  and  imprison- 
ment of  Peter 44  (or  earlier?) 

Paul's  second  visit  to  Jerusalem  (apostolic  council)  45  or  46. 

Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Galatians c.  46. 

Evangelization  of  Macedonia  and  Achaia  (Paul's 

second  missionary  journey) c.  46-49. 

Paul's  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians c.  48. 

Evangelization  of  Asia  (Paul's  third  missionary 

journey)  c.  49-52. 

Trouble  in  the  church  of  Corinth,  and  Paul's  Epis- 
tles to  the  Corinthians,  and  notes  to  Timothy 

and  Titus c.  51-52. 

Paul's  last  visit  in  Corinth 52-53. 

Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  and  note  to  the  Ephe- 

sians 52-53. 

Paul's  last  visit  to  Jerusalem  and  arrest  there     .     .  53. 

Paul's  imprisonment  in  Csesarea 53-55. 

Paul's  journey  to  Rome 55-56. 

Paul's  imprisonment  in  Rome 56-58. 

Paul's  Epistles  to  the  Colossians,  Philemon,  Ephe- 

sians,  and  Philippians,  and  note  to  Timothy  .  56-58. 

Paul's  death 58. 

Peter  in  Rome after  58. 

Death  of  James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord    ....  61  or  62. 

Burning  of  Rome  and  persecution  of  Nero      .     .     .  summer  of  64. 

Death  of  Peter summer  of  64. 

Jewish  war 66-73. 

Destruction  of  Jerusalem September,  70. 

Death  of  John  .     ,     ,    ,    ,    ,    ,    «    .....  98+, 


INDEX 


Achaia,  evangelization  of,  256  sq. 

Achaicus  of  Corinth,  269,  299,  423. 

Acts,  sources  of,  214,  237,  346,  436  sq.; 
author  of,  237,  433  sq. ;  apologetic 
purpose  of,  345  sq. ;  date  of,  349, 
437  sq. 

Aelia  Capitoliua,  566. 

Agabus  the  prophet,  170,  344,  424. 

Albinus  the  procurator,  559. 

Alexander,  a  Jew  of  Ephesus,  282. 

Alexander  the  coppersmith,  280,  409. 

Alexander  (the  coppersmith?),  280  n. 

Ampliatus,  424. 

Ananias  of  Damascus,  97. 

Ananus  the  high  priest,  559. 

Andronicus,  277,  278,  281,  288, 424, 427, 
653 ;  apostleship  of,  649. 

Antichrist,  in  Epistles  to  Thessalo- 
nians,  252. 

Antiuomianism,  140,  244,  515,  586, 617. 

Antipas  of  Pergamum,  635. 

Antioch  in  Syria,  origin  of  Christian- 
ity in,  109. 

Antioch,  Pisidian,  177,  182  sq. 

Apelles,  424. 

Apocalypse,  Christianity  of,  448 ;  au- 
thorship of,  621  sq. ;  purpose  of, 
632  sq. ;  sources  of,  633  sq. ;  date  of, 
634. 

Apollos,  290  sq.,  300,  310,  410,  411,  423, 
653;  party  of,  in  Corinth,  292  sq. ; 
possible  author  of  Epistle  to  He- 
brews, 481 ;  apostleship  of,  649. 

Apologetics,  primitive  Jewish  Chris- 
tian, 54  sq. 

Apostles,  original  significance  of, 
44  sq. ;  conception  of,  in  Acts,  46 ; 
vocation  of,  45,  640;  not  an  official 
board  in  control  of  the  church, 
45sq.,97;  use  of  term,  646  sq.;  qual- 
ifications, 649  sq. ;  position  and  au- 
thority, 650  sq.  See  also  Twelve. 

Apostolic  age,  limits  of,  546  sq. 

Apphia  of  Colossae,  377,  424. 

Aquila,  269,  273,  275,  276  sq.,  292,  423, 
427  sq. 


Arabia,  Paul  in,  161. 
Archippus  of  Colossae,  371,  377,  424. 
Aretas,  king  of  Arabia,  164  n. 
Aristarchus  of  Thessalonica,  360,  397, 

415  n.,  423,  427,  434. 
Aristobulus  of  Ephesus,  278,  424. 
Artemas,  424. 
Asceticism,  502,  510  sq.;  in  Paul,  136; 

in  church  of  Rome,  337 ;  in  Colossae, 

367  sq. 

Asia,  evangelization  of,  273  sq. 
Asiarchs  of  Ephesus,  347. 
Asyncritus,  424. 
Athens,  Paul's  visit  to,  257  sq. 
Atticus,  governor  of  Judea,  566  sq. 

Balaamites,  625. 

Baptism,  at  Pentecost,  59;  original 
formula  of,  60 ;  Trinitarian  formula 
of,  61;  for  the  dead,  272;  Paul's 
administration  of,  in  Corinth,  271 ; 
common  conception  of,  541;  Paul's 
conception  of,  541 ;  mode  of,  542 ;  of 
infants,  542  sq. 

Barcocheba,  566. 

Bar-Jesus  the  sorcerer,  174. 

Barnabas,  in  Antioch,  109,  168;  visit 
to  Jerusalem  (Acts  xii),  170  sq. ;  in 
Cyprus,  174;  at  council  of  Jerusa- 
lem, 194  sq. ;  Peter's  influence  upon, 
at  Antioch,  216  ;  goes  with  Mark  to 
Cyprus,  231 ;  career  of,  424  sq. ;  au- 
thor of  1  Peter  ( ?) ,  598  sq. ;  as  prophet 
and  apostle,  653. 

Barnabas,  epistle  of,  426. 

Beroea,  Paul's  work  in,  253  sq. 

Bishops,  origin  of,  659  sq.,  665  sq. ;  re- 
lation to  apostles,  prophets,  etc., 
662;  relation  to  elders,  663;  func- 
tions of,  664 ;  qualifications  of,  667  ; 
rights  defined  by  Clement,  668. 

Bishops  of  Ephesus,  288. 

"Brethren,"  as  name  of  disciples,  110. 


Caesarea,  340;    Paul's   imprisonment 
in,  351  sq. 


2x 


675 


676 


INDEX 


Carpus  of  Troas,  424. 

Catholic  epistles,  642  sq. 

Celibacy,  recommended  by  Paul 
(I.  Cor.) ,  303. 

Cenchreae,  338. 

Chiliasm,  452. 

Chloe  of  Corinth,  269,  423. 

Christ,  ascension  of,  38  sq. 

Christ,  death  of,  his  own  interpretation 
of,  32  sq. ;  effect  of,  upon  disciples, 
36,  40;  early  Jewish  Christian  ex- 
planation of,  56  sq. ;  Paul's  inter- 
pretation of,  129;  in  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  475  sq. ;  in  Johannine 
writings,  493  sq. ;  in  later  church, 
501. 

Christ,  life  and  teaching  of,  15  sq. 

Christ,  pre-existence  of,  according  to 
Paul,  127;  in  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews, 477  sq. ;  in  Johannine  writ- 
ings, 488. 

Christ,  resurrection  of,  36  sq. ;  effect 
on  disciples,  40  sq. ;  preached  by 
early  Jewish  Christians,  55  sq. ; 
Paul's  interpretation  of,  126  sq. ;  in 
Johannine  writings,  494. 

Christ,  second  coming  of,  according  to 
early  Jewish  Christians,  63. 

Christ,  union  with,  according  to  Paul, 
130  sq. 

Christ,  work  of,  15  sq. ;  according  to 
Paul,  126 ;  in  Epistle  to  Colossians, 
370 ;  in  Epistle  to  Hebrews,  475  sq. ; 
in  Johannine  writings,  493  sq. 

"Christian,"  first  use  of  the  name, 
109. 

Christology  of  Philippians,  388 ;  of  Co- 
lossians, 372  sq. 

Christ-party  in  Corinth,  295  sq. 

Church,  the  body  of  Christ,  383  sq., 
501, 505  ;  senses  of  the  word,  636  sq. ; 
unity  of,  636  sq. ;  organization  of, 
645  sq. 

Cilicia,  Paul's  work  in,  168. 

Claudia  of  Rome,  397,  414,  424,  434. 

Clement  of  Philippi,  240,  256,  424,  431. 

Clement  of  Rome,  432,  454,  668  sq. 

Collection  for  saints  at  Jerusalem,  300, 
309,  314,  323  sq.,  338. 

Colossse,  287 ;  false  teachers  in,  367. 

Colossians,  epistle  to,  written  in  Rome, 
353,  364  sq. ;  purpose  and  contents, 
366  sq.;  authenticity  of,  372  sq.; 
Christology  of,  372  sq. 

Communism  in  early  church  at  Jeru- 
salem, 67, 


Confirmation,  670  n. 

Corinth,  Paul's  work  in,  262  sq. ;  par- 
ties in  church  of,  290  sq. ;  immorality 
in  church  of,  298;  hurried  visit  of 
Paul  to,  310  sq. ;  Paul's  final  visit  to, 
324  sq. 

Corinthians,  lost  epistle  of,  to  Paul, 

299  sq. 

Corinthians,  lost  epistle  of  Paul  to,  298, 

323  n. 
Corinthians  I.,  purpose  and  contents, 

300  sq. 

Corinthians,  Third  Epistle  to,  still  ex- 
tant, 311  sq. ;  purpose  and  contents, 
317  sq. 

Corinthians  II.,  purpose  and  contents, 
321  sq. 

Cornelius,  conversion  of,  101  sq. ;  effect 
of  his  conversion  on  Christians  of 
Jerusalem,  107. 

Crescens,  397,  424,  434. 

Crete,  410. 

Crispus  of  Corinth,  267,  269,  271,  423. 

Cumanus  the  procurator,  358. 

Cyprus,  work  of  Paul  in,  174  sq. 

Dalmatia,  412. 

Damaris  of  Athens,  259,  424. 

Damascus,  Paul  in,  162  sq. 

Deacons,  77,  661,  667,  670. 

Death,  Paul's  conception  of,  125,  133. 

Death  of  Jesus.    See  Christ. 

Decree  of  council  of  Jerusalem,  211  sq. 

Demas,  256  n.,  397,407  n.,  417,  424, 434. 

Demetrius  the  silversmith,  281  sq.,  347. 

Derbe,  178,  189. 

Dionysius  the  Areopagite,  259,  424. 

Diotrephes,  621. 

Docetism,  503,  586,  617.  

Domitian,  treatment  of  Jews,  566;  of 

Christians.    See  Persecution. 
Domitilla,  631. 

Ebionites,  567. 

Elders,  191,  288,  554  sq.,  663,  671. 

Election,  according  to  Paul,  141  n. ; 

common  conception  of,  460  sq. 
Elymas.    See  Bar-Jesus. 
Eprenetus  of  Asia,  276,  287,  424. 
Epaphras  of  Colossae,  374,  382,  397, 

415  n.,  424,  434. 
Epaphroditus    of    Philippi,    240,  256, 

385  sq.,  397,  414,  424,  434. 
Ephesians,  Epistle  to,  not  addressed  to 

church  of   Ephesus,  275;   place  of 

composition,  353,  364  sq. ;  purpose 


INDEX 


677 


and  contents  of,  377  sq. ;  recipients 
of,  379  sq. ;  authenticity  of,  382  sq. 

Ephesians,  note  of  introduction  ad- 
dressed to,  275  sq. 

Ephesus,  work  of  Paul  in,  275  sq. ;  work 
of  John  in,  606  sq. ;  conditions  late 
in  first  century,  625  sq. 

Epictetus,  449  sq. 

Erastus  of  Corinth,  267,  276,  410,  423. 

Essenism,  influence  not  felt  in  Rome, 
337 ;  influence  not  felt  in  Colossse, 
368. 

Ethics  of  church  at  large,  506  sq. 

Ethiopian  eunuch,  conversion  of,  100. 

Eubulus  of  Rome,  397,  414,  424,  434. 

Eunice,  424. 

Euodia  of  Philippi,  240,  256,  424, 

Eutychus  of  Troas,  424. 

Exorcists  in  Ephesus,  286. 

Faith,  Paul's  view  of,  141 ;  common 
conception  of,  458  sq. ;  conception 
of,  in  Hebrews,  473  sq. ;  conception 
of,  in  John,  498. 

Fatherhood  of  God,  16,  447,  507  sq., 
582. 

Felix  the  procurator,  351,  357  sq. 

Festus  the  procurator,  348,  353, 
355  sq. 

Flavins  Clement,  631. 

Flesh,  Paul's  conception  of,  123 ;  treat- 
ment of,  urged  by  Paul,  136. 

Forgiveness,  according  to  Paul,  145. 

Fortunatus  of  Corinth,  269,  299, 423. 

Gaius  of  Asia,  620  sq. 

Gaius  of  Corinth,  267,  269,  271,  423. 

Gaius  of  Derbe,  424. 

Gaius  of  Macedonia,  256,  424. 

Galatia,  evangelization  of,  172  sq. 

Galatians,  Epistle  to,  recipients  of, 
178  sq. ;  purpose  and  contents  of, 
221  sq. ;  place  and  date  of  composi- 
tion, 226  sq. 

Gallic,  proconsul  of  Achaia,  270,  347. 

Gamaliel,  84. 

Gentiles,  Jesus'  attitude  toward,  26; 
earliest  missionary  work  among, 
101  sq.,  108 ;  Paul's  attitude  toward, 
146,  183. 

Gentile  church,  origin  of,  110  sq. 

Gessius  Florus  the  procurator,  561. 

Glossolalia,  50  sq.,  308,  521  sq.,  526. 

Gnostics,  502  sq.,  586,  617,  624. 

Gospels,  origin  of,  568  sq. ;  as  bonds  of 
unity,  643. 


Hebrews,  Epistle  to,  date,  463 ;  Chris- 
tianity of,  463  sq. ;  recipients  of,  463 
sq. ;  purpose  of,  469;  contents  of, 
470  sq. 

Hellenists,  in  early  church  at  Jerusa- 
lem, 76. 

Heresy,  effect  of,  644. 

Hermas  of  Ephesus,  424,  432. 

Hermas  of  Rome,  432. 

Hermes  of  Ephesus,  424. 

Hermogenes  of  Ephesus,  280,  424. 

Herod  Agrippa  I.,  93,  559. 

Herod  Agrippa  II.,  348,  355. 

Herodion  of  Ephesus,  277,  424,  427. 

Holiness,  509  sq. 

Holy  Spirit.    See  Spirit. 

Hospitality,  639. 

House-churches  in  Ephesus,  278. 

Hymenseus,  280,  424. 

Iconium,  178,  188. 

Idols ,  eating  of  meats  offered  to,  303  sq. 

Ignatius  of  Antioch,  500. 

Illyricum,  254,  412. 

Infant  baptism.    See  Baptism. 

Inspiration  of  apostles,  prophets,  etc., 

526,  653  sq. 
Interpretation,  gift  of,  526. 

James,  brother  of  the  Lord,  198,  199, 
209  sq.,  340,  549  sq. 

James,  epistle  of,  Christianity  of, 
446  sq. 

James,  epistle  of,  authorship  and  com- 
position, 579  sq. 

James,  son  of  Zebedee,  death  of,  93, 
199. 

Jason  of  Thessalonica,  245,  347  n.,  423. 

Jerusalem,  church  of,  later  history, 
559  sq. 

Jerusalem,  council  of,  194  sq.,  208  sq. 

Jerusalem,  destruction  of,  546  sq., 
562  sq. 

Jesus.    See  Christ. 

Jesus  Justus,  397,  424,  427,  434. 

Jewish  Christianity,  early  days  of, 
36  sq. 

Jewish  Christians,  in  later  church  at 
Jerusalem,  342 ;  in  Corinth,  315. 

Jewish  law.    See  Law. 

Jewish  war,  561  sq. 

Jews,  Paul's  attitude  toward,  162,  182 
sq.,  334  sq. ;  Paul's  preaching  to  in 
Ephesus,  284;  in  Philippi,  239;  in 
Thessalonica,  246  sq. ;  in  Beroea,  254 
sq.;  in  Corinth,  267 sq. ;  God's  treat- 


678 


INDEX 


ment  of,  according  to  Paul,  334  sq. ; 
expelled  from  Rome  by  Claudius, 
3(32  sq. 
Jews  in  Philippi,  trouble  caused  by, 


Johannine  writings,  Christianity  of, 
487  sq. ;  Paulinisrn  of,  488  sq. 

John  the  apostle,  at  council  of  Jeru- 
salem, 199;  later  career  of,  606;  in 
Ephesus,  G06  sq. 

John,  Gospel  of,  purpose  and  plan, 
609  sq. ;  authorship,  614  sq. 

John,  First  Epistle  of,  617  sq. 

John,  Second  Epistle  of,  620. 

John,  Third  Epistle  of,  620. 

John,  Revelation  of.    See  Apocalypse. 

John  the  Baptist,  9  sq. ;  disciples  of, 
11,  285  sq.;  290. 

John  Mark.    See  Mark. 

John  the  presbyter,  621,  623  sq. 

Judaism,  1  sq. ;  early  Jewish  Chris- 
tians' attitude  toward,  64;  of  the 
dispersion,  157  sq.,  444;  proselytes 
of,  159. 

Judaizers,  192  sq.,  315,  647;  in  Gala- 
tia,  218  sq. ;  not  in  Corinth,  295  sq., 
350;  not  in  Colossse,  367;  not  in 
Philippi,  389;  not  in  Rome,  389,  394. 

Judas,  brother  of  Jesus,  565  sq. 

Judas,  Epistle  of,  585  sq. 

Judgment,  Jewish  conception  of,  6. 

Julia,  424. 

Junias,  277,  278,  281, 288, 424, 427,  653; 
apostleship  of,  649. 

Justification,  Paul's  doctrine  of,  139, 
143. 

Kingdom  of  God,  conception  of  Jews, 
7,  24,  27  sq.;  of  John  the  Baptist, 
12 ;  of  Jesus,  19  sq. ;  of  early  disci- 

•   pies,  41,  62. 

Laodicea,  287,  625. 

Laodiceans,  possible  recipients  of 
Epistle  to  Ephesians,  380. 

Law,  Paul's  conception  of,  124,  138; 
Christian's  relation  to,  according  to 
Paul,  138  sq. ;  function  of,  accord- 
ing to  Paul,  139;  Christ's  relation 
to,  according  to  Paul,  139. 

Law,  the  Christian,  443  sq.,  495. 

Law,  the  Levitical,  influence  upon  the 
Jews,  3  sq. 

Law,  the  Jewish,  John  the  Baptist's 
attitude  toward,  13;  Jesus'  attitude 
toward,  25;  early  Christians'  atti- 


tude toward,  59,  64  sq. ;  Christian's 
relation  to,  according  to  Paul,  146 ; 
view  of  in  Johannine  writings,  495. 

Libertinism.     See  Antinomianism. 

Liberty,  Paul's  doctrine  of,  140, 304, 336. 

Life  of  primitive  disciples,  64  sq. ;  of 
Christians  of  world  church,  506  sq. 

Life,  the  Christian,  according  to  Paul, 
135  sq.,  332 ;  divinity  of,  137,  141. 

Linus  of  Rome,  397,  414,  424,  431,  434. 

Logia,71,569sq. 

Logos  in  Philo,  478. 

Logos-Christology,  of  Epistle  to  He- 
brews, 478,  488;  of  John,  488. 

Lois,  424. 

Lord's  Day,  observance  of,  543  sq. 

Lord's  Prayer,  531  sq. 

Lord's  Supper,  origin  of,  68  n. ;  in  early 
church  at  Jerusalem,  68  sq. ;  in  Cor- 
inth, 306 ;  in  church  at  large,  536  sq. ; 
Paul's  view  of,  305,  539;  common 
conception  of,  540. 

Love,  for  brethren,  508  sq. ;  for  God, 
507  sq. ;  for  man,  508  sq. 

Love,  law  of,  according  to  Jesus,  25  sq. : 
according  to  James,  446  sq. ;  accord- 
ing to  Paul,  307  sq. 

Lucius,  424,  427. 

Lucius  of  Gyrene,  424. 

Luke,  397,  414  sq.,  417,  424,  433  sq. 

Luke,  Gospel  of,  433  sq.,  574  sq. 

Lydia  of  Philippi,  240,  424. 

Lysias,  the  tribune,  348,  350. 

Lystra,  178,  188. 

Macedonia,  evangelization  of,  234  sq. ; 

Paul's  second  visit  to,  324;  Paul's 

final  visit  to,  338. 
Malta,  Paul  in,  361. 
Manaen,  424. 
Marcion,  502. 

Mark,  174,  231,  397,  410,  423,  427,  434. 
Mark,  Gospel  of,  571  sq.  ;  relation  to 

Peter,  603  sq. 
Marriage  discussed  by  Paul  (I.  Cor.), 

303. 

Mary  of  Ephesus,  277,  424,  427. 
Matthew,  Gospel  of,  574  sq. 
Matthew,  Logia  of.    See  Logia. 
Matthias,  appointment  to  the  Aposto- 

late,  45  sq. 
Messiah,  Jewish  conception  of,  8 ;  pre- 

existence  of,  according  to  the  Jews, 

8;    John   the    Baptist's   conception 

of,  10  ;   primitive  Jewish  Christian 

idea  of,  54. 


INDEX 


679 


Messiahship  of  Jesus,  early  disciples' 
idea  of,  42;  his  own  idea  of,  43; 
primitive  Jewish  Christian  proof  of, 
55  sq. ;  preached  by  Paul  at  Damas- 
cus, 163. 

Messianic  age,  Jewish  conception  of, 
5,7. 

Messianic  hope,  origin  of,  2 ;  develop- 
ment of,  5  ;  effect  of,  upon  Jesus, 
17  sq.  ;  effect  of,  upon  Jesus'  suc- 
cess, 31. 

Messianic  prophecy,  use  of,  by  early 
Jewish  Christians,  55  sq. 

Miletus,  Paul's  meeting  with  Ephesian 
elders  in,  338  sq. 

Miracles  in  the  early  church  at  Jeru- 
salem, 74  sq. 

Monarchical  episcopacy,  671. 

Narcissus,  278,  424. 

"  Nazarenes "  as  name  of  disciples, 
110. 

Nereus,  424. 

Nero  and  the  burning  of  Rome,  628  sq. 

Nero,  persecution  by.  See  Persecu- 
tion. 

Nicolaitans,  625  sq. 

Nicolas,  one  of  the  Seven,  79,  626. 

Nicopolis,  410. 

Niger,  424. 

Number  of  Christians  in  early  church 
at  Jerusalem,  80. 

Nymphas,  424. 

Old  Testament.    See  Scriptures. 

Olympas,  424. 

Onesimus  of  Colossae,  374,  396,  424, 

434. 
Onesiphorus  of  Ephesus,  279,  397,  415, 

424,  434. 

Ordination,  670  n. 
Organization  of  the  church,  645  sq. 

Pamphylia,  176. 

Pastoral  Epistles,  authenticity  of, 
398  sq. ;  Christianity  of,  403  sq.;  in- 
tegrity of,  404  sq. ;  purpose  of  re- 
dactor, 412  sq.  ;  date  of  redaction, 
413. 

Patrobas,  424. 

Paul,  Christianity  of,  113  sq. ;  early 
training,  114 ;  use  of  Scriptures,  115 ; 
intellectual  gifts,  116 ;  religious  char- 
acter, 117 ;  conversion,  119  sq. ;  doc- 
trine of  salvation,  123  sq. ;  attitude 
toward  Gentiles,  146,  183;  develop- 


ment of  his  thought,  148 ;  relation  of 
his  teaching  to  that  of  Jesus,  149; 
influence  of  his  teaching  on  later 
generations,  149;  early  years  of 
Christian  life,  161  sq. ;  in  Arabia, 
161 ;  in  Damascus,  162  sq. ;  attitude 
toward  the  Jews,  162,  182  sq.  ; 
chronology  of  his  life,  164,  172, 
356  sq. ;  first  visit  to  Jerusalem, 
165 ;  in  Syria  and  Cilicia,  166  sq. ;  al- 
leged visit  to  Jerusalem  (Acts  xii.), 
170  sq. ;  in  Cyprus,  174  sq. ;  name  of, 
176 ;  in  Galatia,  178  sq. ;  illness  of, 
177 ;  conflict  with  Judaizers,  192  sq. ; 
at  council  of  Jerusalem,  194  sq.; 
apostleship  of,  not  recognized  at 
Jerusalem,  197 ;  rebukes  Peter  at 
Antioch,  204;  Epistle  to  the  Gala- 
tians,  221  sq. ;  in  Macedonia,  239  sq. ; 
Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians,  250  sq.; 
in  Athens,  257  sq.  ;  in  Corinth, 
262  sq. ;  alleged  visit  to  Jerusalem 
(Acts  xviii.) ,  274;  in  Ephesus,  275 sq.; 
condemned  to  the  arena  in  Ephesus, 
280;  lost  epistle  to  Corinthians,  298, 
323 n.;  lost  epistle  of  Corinthians 
to  Paul,  299  sq. ;  First  Corinthians, 
300  sq. ;  Third  Epistle  to  Corinthians, 
311,  317  sq. ;  thorn  in  the  flesh,  319 ; 
Second  Corinthians,  321  sq.;  final 
visit  to  Corinth,  324  sq. ;  Epistle  to 
Romans,  325  sq. ;  final  visit  to 
Jerusalem,  340  sq. ;  arrest  in  Jeru- 
salem, 343  sq.  ;  imprisonment  in 
Caesarea,  351  sq. ;  appeal  to  Caesar, 
348,  354;  address  before  Agrippa, 
355  sq. ;  journey  to  Rome,  359  sq. ; 
in  Rome,  362  sq. ;  Epistle  to  Colos- 
sians,  366  sq. ;  Epistlo  to  Philemon, 
375 ;  attitude  toward  existing  social 
institutions,  376;  Epistle  to  Ephe- 
sians,  377  sq. ;  Epistle  to  Philippians, 
385  sq. ;  alleged  release,  415  sq. ;  al- 
leged journey  to  Spain,  415  sq. ;  trial 
and  final  condemnation,  420  sq. ; 
execution,  415,  420  sq.,  627;  date  of 
death,  419;  disciples  and  compan- 
ions of,  423  sq. 

Pella,  563  sq. 

Pentecost,  significance  of,  48  sq. 

Perga,  176. 

Pergamum,  Christianity  in,  625  sq. 

Persecution ,  in  Jerusalem ,  91 ;  by  Nero, 
430,  593,  (528  sq. :  by  Vespasian  (?), 
630 ;  by  Titus  ( ?),  630 ;  by  Domitian, 
630  sq.;  effect  of,  644. 


680 


INDEX 


Persis,  424. 

Peter,  leadership  of,  in  early  church  of 
Jerusalem,  47  sq. ;  appearance  of 
risen  Jesus  to,  48 ;  Pentecostal  dis- 
course of,  53  sq. ;  preaches  to  Cor- 
nelius, 101  sq. ;  Paul's  first  interview 
with,  165  sq. ;  at  council  of  Jeru- 
salem, 199,  209  sq. ;  at  Antioch, 
202  sq. ;  apostle  of  the  circumcision, 
206 ;  party  of,  in  Corinth,  294  sq. ; 
missionary  work  of,  588  sq. ;  in 
Rome,  591  sq. ;  martyrdom  of,  592 ; 
relation  to  Gospel  of  Mark,  603  sq. ; 
influence  on  Roman  church,  605  sq. 
Peter,  First  Epistle  of,  Christianity, 
482 sq.;  contents,  483 sq.;  Paulinism, 
485  sq. ;  purpose,  482  sq. ;  authorship, 
593  sq.,  598  sq. ;  date  and  place  of 
composition,  596  sq. 

Peter,  Second  Epistle  of,  600  sq. 

Pharisees,  religious  principles  of,  4; 
attitude  toward  early  Christians,  82. 

Philadelphia,  church  of,  625. 

Philemon  of  Colossae,  374  sq.,  424. 

Philemon,  Epistle  to,  353,  364  sq.,  375 
sq. 

Philetus,  280,  424. 

Philip,  one  of  the  Seven,  73  sq.,  95, 340, 
424. 

Philippi,  Paul's  work  in,  239  sq. 

Philippians,  Epistle  to,  written  in 
Rome,  364;  purpose  and  contents, 
385  sq. ;  Christology,  388;  authen- 
ticity, 393. 

Philo  of  Alexandria,  159,  478. 

Philologus,  424. 

Phlegon,  424. 

Phoebe  of  CenchreaB,  275,  278,  424. 

Phygelus  of  Ephesus,  280,  424. 

Praise  in  worship,  530. 

Prayer,  530  sq. 

Presbyters.    See  Elders. 

Priscilla,  269,  273, 275, 276  sq.,  292, 423, 
427  sq. 

Prophecy,  308,  526. 

Prophets,  527  sq.,  640  sq.,  651  sq. 

Provinces.    See  Roman  Empire. 

Ptolemseus,  340. 

Pudens  of  Rome,  397,  414,  424,  434. 

Quartus,  424. 

Reconciliation,    according    to    Paul, 

145  n. 
Redemption,    Paul's    conception    of. 

129  sq. ;  doctrine  of,  in  Romans,  332 ; 


in  Colossians,  369  sq.;  in  John, 
494  sq. 

Repentance,  inculcated  by  Peter  at 
Pentecost,  58 ;  emphasized  in  church 
at  large,  457  sq. 

Resurrection,  Jewish  conception  of,  5 ; 
Paul's  conception  of,  134,  309;  in 
epistles  to  Thessalonians,  248 ;  com- 
mon conception  of,  452  sq. 

Resurrection  of  Christ.  See  Christ, 
Resurrection  of. 

Revelation.    See  Apocalypse. 

Righteousness,  Jewish  conception  of, 
3,  6 ;  John  the  Baptist's  conception 
of,  13 ;  Jewish  Christian  idea  of,  59. 

Righteousness  of  faith,  142,  330  sq. 

Righteousness  of  works,  142,  330  sq. 

Roman  Empire,  provinces  of,  151; 
heterogeneity  of,  151;  provincial 
policy  of,  152  sq. ;  unity  of,  152  sq. ; 
culture  of,  155  sq. ;  religion  of,  155, 
157 ;  ethical  condition  of,  156, 448  sq. : 
attitude  toward  Christianity,  627  sq. 

Romans,  Epistle  to,  last  chapter  ad- 
dressed to  Ephesus,  275  sq. ;  purpose 
and  contents,  325  sq. 

Rome,  church  of,  325,  328,  588  sq., 
669  sq. 

Rome,  Paul's  imprisonment  in,  362  sq. ; 
burning  of,  628. 

Rufus,  279,  424. 

Sabbath  in  the  Christian  church,  543: 

Sacrifice  of  Christ,  according  to  Paul, 
145  n. 

Sadducees,  attitude  toward  early 
Christians,  82. 

"  Saints  "  as  name  of  disciples,  110. 

Salvation,  early  Jewish  Christian  idea 
of,  63 ;  Paul's  doctrine  of,  123  sq. ; 
Gentile  conception  of,  451  sq. ;  in 
Epistle  to  Hebrews,  473  sq. 

Samaria,  preaching  of  Gospel  in,  95. 

Sardis,  Christianity  in,  625. 

Sceva,  a  Jewish  priest,  287  n. 

Scriptures,  as  used  by  the  early  Jewish 
Christians,  71;  Paul's  use  of,  115; 
as  used  by  Jews  of  dispersion,  159; 
as  a  Christian  book,  465 ;  in  Chris- 
tian worship,  532. 

Secundus,  424. 

Seneca,  450  n. 

Sergius  Paulus,  proconsul  of  Cyprus, 
175,  347,  424. 

Seven,  the,  appointment  of,  77;  func- 
tions of,  78. 


INDEX 


681 


Sibylline  Oracles,  159. 

Silas.    See  Silvanus. 

Silvanus,  230,  239  sq., 269, 423, 426, 485 ; 
apostleship  of,  649. 

Simon  Magus,  99. 

Sin,  Paul's  conception  of,  123. 

Slavery,  Paul's  attitude  toward,  376. 

Smyrna,  church  of,  625. 

Sopater  of  Beroea,  424. 

Sosipater,  424,  427. 

Sosthenes  of  Corinth,  270. 

Spain,  Paul's  alleged  journey  to,  415  sq. 

Spirit,  presence  of,  a  characteristic  of 
the  Messianic  age,  8 ;  Jesus'  promise 
of,  32  sq. ;  work  of,  in  days  after 
Jesus'  death,  49 ;  activity  of,  at  Pen- 
tecost, 50 ;  activity  of,  in  early  church 
at  Jerusalem,  71  sq. ;  mediation  of, 
by  apostles,  97,  286;  mediated  by 
laying  on  of  hands,  98,  286;  Paul's 
conception  of,  132 ;  in  the  Christian, 
135  sq.,  307 ;  in  the  church,  518. 

Spiritual  gifts,  Paul's  view  of,  307. 

Stachys,  424. 

Stephanas  of  Corinth,  267,  269,  271, 
273,  299,  310,  423. 

Stephen,  73,  74,  79,  85  sq. ;  discourse 
of,  86  sq. 

Symeon  of  Antioch,  424. 

Symeon,  son  of  Clopas,  564  sq. 

Synoptic  gospels,  Christianity  of, 
462  sq. 

Syntyche  of  Philippi,  240,  256,  424. 

Synzygus  of  Philippi,  240,  256,  424. 

Tarsus,  113,  168. 

Teachers,  640  sq.,  654  sq. 

Teaching,  gift  of,  528  sq. 

Tertius,  424. 

Thessalonians,     Paul's    Epistles    to, 

250  sq. 

Thessalonica,  Paul's  work  in,  244  sq. 
Theudas,  84  n. 


Thyatira,  Christianity  in,  625  sq. 

Timothy,  231,  239 sq.,  249,  257,  269, 276, 
297,  300,  310,  321,  386,  396  sq.,  423, 
428 ;  circumcision  of,  232  sq. ;  epistles 
of  Paul  to,  398  sq. ;  genuine  notes  of 
Paul  to,  279,  405  sq. ;  apostleship  of, 
649. 

Titus,  companion  of  Paul,  194,  310  n., 
320  sq.,  397, 423,  429  sq.,  434 ;  epistle 
of  Paul  to,  398  sq. ;  genuine  note  of 
Paul  to,  410  sq. 

Titus,  emperor  of  Rome,  561 ;  attitude 
toward  Christians.  See  Persecution. 

Titius  Justus  of  Corinth,  268,  269,  424. 

Tongues,  gift  of.    See  Glossolalia. 

Trajan,  treatment  of  Jews,  566. 

Troas,  284,  287,  339,  407,  410;  Paul's 
vision  in,  235. 

Trophimus  of  Asia,  344,  407, 410,  423. 

Tryphaena,  424. 

Tryphosa,  424. 

Twelve,  Paul  compared  with,  in  Cor- 
inth, 314 ;  use  of  term,  646  sq.  See 
also  Apostles. 

Tychicus  of  Asia,  374,  377,  382,  396, 
410,  417,  423,  434. 

Tyrannus,  school  of,  in  Ephesus,  284  sq. 

Tyre,  339. 

Unity  of  the  chiych,  636  sq. 
Urbanus,  424. 

Vespasian,  treatment  of  the  Jews, 
561,  566;  of  the  Christians.  See 
Persecution. 

"  We  "  passages  in  Acts,  173  n.,  236  sq., 

338,  359,  362. 

Women  in  religious  services,  305,  308. 
Worship  in  early  church  of  Jerusalem, 

68 ;  in  the  church  at  large,  520  sq. 

Zeuas,  411, 424. 


Jttfcrnaftonaf  ^^eofogtcaf  fet 


AN  INTRODUCTION  TO 

The  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament 

By  Prof.  S.  R.  DRIVER,  D.D.,  D.Litt 

Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford 

*      New  Edition  Revised 


Crown  8vo,  558  pages,  $2.50  net 


It  is  the  most  scholarly  and  critical  work  in  the  English  Ian- 
guage  on  the  literature  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  fully  up  to  the 
present  state  of  research  in  Gc  many." — Prof.  PHILIP  SCHAFF,  D.D. 

"  Canon  Driver  has  arrang  1  his  material  excellently,  ir,  succinct 
without  being  hurried  or  uncleai,  and  treats  the  various  critical  prob- 
lems involved  with  admirable  fairness  and  good  judgment." 

—Prof.  C.  H.  TOY. 

"  His  judgment  is  singularly  fair,  calm,  unbiassed,  and  inde- 
pendent. It  is  also  thoroughly  reverential.  .  .  .  The  service, 
which  his  book  will  render  in  the  present  confusion  of  mind  on  this 
great  subject,  can  scarcely  be  overestimated." — The  London  Times. 

"As  a  whole,  there  is  probably  no  book  in  the  English  language 
equal  to  this  '  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament' 
for  the  student  who  desires  to  understand  what  the  modern  criticism 
thinks  about  the  Bible." — Dr.  LYMAN  ABBOTT,  in  the  Outlook. 

"The  book  is  one  worthy  of  its  subject,  thorough  in  its  treat- 
ment, reverent  in  its  tone,  sympathetic  in  its  estimate,  frank  in  its 
recognition  of  difficulties,  conservative  (in  the  best  sense  of  the 
word)  in  its  statement  of  results  " 

— Prof.  HENRY  P.  SMITH,  in  the  Magazine  of  Christian  Literature. 

"  In  working  out  his  method  our  author  takes  up  each  book  in 
order  and  goes  through  it  with  marvelous  and  microscopic  care. 
Every  verse,  every  clause,  word  by  word,  is  sifted  and  weighed,  and 
its  place  in  the  literary  organism  decided  upon." 

—  The  Presbyterian  Quarterly. 

"  It  contains  just  that  presentation  of  the  results  o*  Old  Testa- 
ment criticism  for  which  English  readers  in  this  department  have 
been  waiting.  .  .  .  The  whole  book  is  excellent;  it  will  be  found 
helpful,  characterized  as  it  is  all  through  by  that  scholarly  poise  of 
mind,  which,  when  it  does  not  know,  is  not  ashamed  to  present  de- 
grees of  probability." — New  World. 

...  Canon  Driver's  book  is  characterized  throughout  by 
thorough  Christian  scholarship,  faithful  research,  caution  in  the 
expression  of  mere  opinions,  candor  in  the  statement  of  facts  and  of 
the  necessary  inferences  from  them,  and  the  devout  recognition  of 
the  divine  inworking  in  the  religious  life  of  the  Hebrews,  and  of  the 
tokens  of  divine  inspiration  in  the  literature  which  records  and  em- 
bodies it." — Dr.  A.  P.  PEABODY,  in  the  Cambridge  Tribune* 


OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

By  HENRY  PRESERVED  SMITH,  D.D. 

PROFESSOR  OF  BIBLICAL  HISTORY  AND  INTERPRETATION,  AMHERST  COLLEGE 


Crown  8vo,  538  pages,  $2.50  net 


This  book  gives  a  history  of  Old  Testament  times. 
This  it  does  by  a  narrative  based  upon  those  Bibli- 
cal books  which  are  historical  in  form.  The  nature 
of  these  books  is  carefully  considered,  their  data  are 
used  according  to  historical  methods,  and  the  con- 
clusions of  recent  criticism  are  set  forth.  The  other 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  with  the  more  impor- 
tant of  the  Apocrypha  are  given  their  proper  place 
so  far  as  they  throw  light  on  the  development  of 
the  Old  Testament  people. 

44  Professor  Smith  has,  by  his  comprehensive  and  vitalized  history, 
laid  all  who  care  for  the  Old  Testament  under  great  obligations." 

—  The  Independent. 

44  The  volume  is  characterized  by  extraordinary  clearness  of  con- 
ception  and  representation,  thorough  scholarly  ability,  and  charm 
of  style." — The  Interior. 

•'  Dr.  Smith's  volume  is  critical  without  being  polemical,  inter- 
esting though  not  imaginative,  scholarly  without  pedantry,  and  radi- 
cal but  not  destructive.  The  author  is  himself  an  authority,  and  his 
volume  is  the  best  single  presentation  with  which  we  are  familiar  of 
the  modern  view  of  Old  Testament  history." — The  Outlook. 

"This  volume  is  the  result  of  thorough  study,  is  free  from  the 
controversial  spirit  and  from  any  evidence  of  desire  to  challenge  older 
theories  of  the  Bible,  is  written  in  straightforward,  clear  style,  does 
not  linger  unduly  in  discussion  of  doubtful  matters,  Is  reverent  and  at 
the  same  time  fearless.  If  one  has  accepted  the  main  positions  of  the 
Higher  Criticism,  while  he  may  still  differ  with  Professor  Smith's 
conclusions  here  and  there,  he  will  find  himself  in  accord  with  the 
spirit  of  the  author,  whose  scholarship  and  achievement  he  will 
gladly  honor." — The  Congregationalist. 

44  We  have  a  clear,  interesting,  instructive  account  of  the  growth 
of  Israel,  embodying  a  series  of  careful  judgments  on  the  countless 
problems  that  face  the  man  who  tries  to  understand  the  life  of  that 
remarkable  people.  The  '  History'  takes  its  place  worthily  by  the  side 
of  Driver's  Introduction.  The  student  of  to-day  is  to  be  congratulated 
on  having  so  valuable  an  addition  made  to  his  stock  of  tools." 

—  The  Expository  Times. 


The  Theology  of  the  Old  Testament. 

BY  THE  LATE 

A.  B.  DAVIDSON,   D.D.,  LL.D.,  Litt.D. 

Professor  of  Hebrew  and  Old  Testament  Exegesis,  New  College,  Edinburgh. 

EDITED  FROM  THE  AUTHOR'S  MANUSCRIPTS 

BY 

S.  D.  F.  SALMOND,  D.D.,  F.E.I.S. 

Principal  of  the  United  Free  Church  College,  Aberdeen. 
Crown  8vo.    568  pages.    $2,50  net. 

"It  is  one  of  those  monumental  works  whose  publication  the  scholar  hails 
with  gratitude.  Principal  Salmond  has  edited  Professor  Davidson's  manu- 
scripts with  care  and  fidelity.  It  would  require  much  more  space  than  we 
can  give  this  volume  in  our  crowded  columns  even  to  indicate  the  many  points 
in  which  this,  one  of  the  greatest  of  Hebrew  scholars,  shows  himself  a  lineal 
descendant  and  successor  of  the  ancient  prophets  whom  he  loved  so  well;  but 
it  is  enough  to  say  that  the  work  is  fitted  by  its  scholarship  and  its  tone  to 
become  a  standard  in  every  theological  seminary.  Great  pains  have  been 
taken  with  the  Hebrew  text,  so  frequently  quoted,  and  its  use  is  distinctly 
illuminative.  His  learning  is  never  introduced  to  dazzle,  but  always  to  en- 
lighten the  reader."  —  The  Interior. 

"  We  hope  every  clergyman  will  not  rest  content  till  he  has  procured  and 
studied  this  most  admirable  and  useful  book.  Every  really  useful  question 
relating  to  man  —  his  nature,  his  fall,  and  his  redemption,  his  present  life  of 
grace,  his  life  after  death,  his  future  life  —  is  treated  of.  We  may  add  that  the 
most  conservatively  inclined  believer  in  the  Old  Testament  will  find  nothing 
in  this  book  to  startle  him,  while,  at  the  same  time,  the  book  is  fully  cogni- 
zant of  the  altered  views  regarding  the  ancient  Scriptures.  The  tone  is  rever- 
ent throughout,  and  no  one  who  reads  attentively  can  fail  to  derive  fresh  light 
and  benefit  from  the  exposition  here  given."  —  The  Canadian  Churchman. 

"  Dr.  Davidson  was  so  keen  a  student,  and  yet  so  reverent  as  to  his  Bible, 
that  anything  from  his  pen  must  be  of  profit.  The  book  gives  evidence  that 
his  eyes  were  wide  open  to  all  modern  research,  but  yet  he  was  not  led  astray 
by  any  of  the  vagaries  of  the  schools.  Through  all  the  treatment  of  the 
theme  he  remains  conservative,  while  seeking  to  know  the  truth."  —  Examiner. 

"  No  one  can  fail  to  gain  immense  profit  from  its  careful  study.  We  rejoice 
that  such  a  work  is  added  to  the  store  of  helpful  literature  on  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  we  express  the  hope  that  it  may  find  wide  reading  among  ministers 
and  teachers  of  the  Bible."  —  The  Standard. 

"  In  its  treatment  of  Old  Testament  theology,  there  is  nothing  to  equal  it 
in  the  English  language,  and  nothing  to  surpass  it  in  any  language.  While  it 
is  prepared  for  scholars  it  will  prove  an  education  in  the  Old  Testament  to  the 
intelligent  laymen  or  Sunday-school  teachers  who  will  give  it  a  faithful  read- 
ing. The  style  is  so  clear  that  it  cannot  help  but  prove  interesting.  We  com- 
mend this  book  with  a  special  prayer,  believing  that  it  will  make  the  Old 
Testament  a  richer  book;  and  make  the  foundation  upon  which  the  teachings 
of  the  New  Testament  stand  more  secure  to  every  one  who  reads  it.1" 

—  The  Heidelberg  Ttachet. 


Jnfernaftonaf  £0eofogtcaf 


A   HISTORY  OF 

CHRISTIANITY  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE 

BY 

ARTHUR  CUSHMAN   McGIFFERT,  Ph.D.,  D.D. 

Washburn  Professor  of  Church  History  in  the  Union  Theological  Seminary,  Nrw  Ye 


Crown  8vo,  681  Pages,  $2.50  Net. 


"  The  author's  work  is  ably  done.  .  .  .  This  volume  is  worthy  of 
fts  place  in  the  series." — The  Congregationalist. 

' '  Invaluable  as  a  resume  of  the  latest  critical  work  upon  the  great  forma- 
tive period  of  the  Christian  Church." — The  Christian  World  (London). 

"There  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  is  a  remarkable  work,  both  on  account 
of  the  thoroughness  of  its  c/iv;cism  and  the  boldness  of  its  views." 

—  The  Scotsman. 

"  The  ability  and  learning  of  Processor  McGiffert's  work  on  the  Apos- 
tolic Age,  and,  whatever  dissent  there  may  be  from  its  critical  opinion,  its 
manifest  sincerity,  candid  scholars  will  not  fail  to  appreciate." 

— DR.  GEORGE  P.  FISHER,  of  Yale  University. 

"  Pre-eminently  a  clergyman's  book ;  but  there  are  many  reasons  why  it 
should  be  in  the  library  of  every  thoughtful  Christian  person.  The  style 
is  vivid  and  at  times  picturesque.  The  results  rather  than  the  processes  of 
learning  are  exhibited.  It  is  full  of  local  color,  of  striking  narrative,  and  of 
keen,  often  brilliant,  character  analysis.  It  is  an  admirable  book  for  the 
Sunday-school  teacher." — Boston  Advertiser. 

"  For  a  work  of  such  wide  learning  and  ciitical  accuracy,  and  which  deals 
with  so  many  difficult  and  abstruse  problems  of  Christian  history,  this  is  re- 
markably readable." — The  Independent. 

"It  is  certain  that  Professor  McGiffert's  work  has  set  the  mark  for 
future  effort  in  the  obscure  fields  of  research  into  Christian  origin." 

—New  York  Tribune. 

"  Dr.  McGiffert  has  produced  an  able,  scholarly,  suggestive,  and  con- 
structive work.  He  is  in  thorough  and  easy  possession  of  his  sources  and 
materials,  so  that  his  positive  construction  is  seldom  interrupted  by  citations, 
'.he  demolition  of  opposing  views,  or  the  irrelevant  discussion  of  subordinate 
questions." — The  Methodist  Review. 

"The  clearness,  self-consistency,  and  force  of  the  whole  impression  of 
Apostolic  Christianity  with  which  we  leave  this  book,  goes  far  to  guarantee 
its  permanent  value  and  success." — The  Expositor. 


THEOLOGY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

By  GEORGE  B.  STEVENS,  D.D. 

ftofessor  of  Systematic  Theology,  Yale  University. 


Crown  8vo,  538  pages,  $2.50  net. 


••In  style  it  is  rarely  clear,  simple,  and  strong,  adapted  alike  to  the  gen- 
ei-il  reader  and  the  theological  student.  The  former  class  will  find  it  read- 
able  and  interesting  to  an  unusual  degree,  while  the  student  will  value  its 
thorough  scholarship  and  completeness  of  treatment.  His  work  has  a  sim- 
plicity, beauty,  and  freshness  that  add  greatly  to  its  scholarly  excellence  and 
worth." — Christian  Advocate. 

"  Professor  Stevens  is  a  profound  student  and  interpreter  of  the  Bible,  as 
far  as  possible  divested  of  any  prepossessions  concerning  its  message.  In 
his  study  of  it  his  object  has  been  not  to  find  texts  that  might  seem  to  bol- 
ster up  some  system  of  theological  speculation,  but  to  find  out  what  the 
writers  of  the  various  books  meant  to  say  and  teach. " — N.  K  Tribune. 

"It  is  a  fine  example  of  painstaking,  discriminating,  impartial  research 
and  statement." — The  Congregationalist. 

"  Professor  Stevens  has  given  us  a  very  good  book.  A  liberal  conser- 
vative, he  takes  cautious  and  moderate  positions  in  the  field  of  New  Testa- 
ment criticism,  yet  is  admirably  fair-minded.  His  method  is  patient  and 
tnorough.  He  states  the  opinions  of  those  who  differ  from  him  with  care 
and  clearness.  The  proportion  of  quotation  and  reference  is  well  adjusted 
and  the  reader  is  kept  well  informed  concerning  the  course  of  opinion  with- 
out being  drawn  away  from  the  text  of  the  author's  own  thought.  His 
iudgments  on  difficult  questions  are  always  put  with  self-restraint  and 
sobriety."—  The  Churchman. 

"  It  will  certainly  take  its  place,  after  careful  reading,  as  a  valuable 
*vnopsis,  neither  bare  nor  over-elaborate,  to  which  recourse  will  be  had  by 
the  student  or  teacher  who  requires  within  moderate  compass  the  gist  of 
•aodern  research." — The  Literary  World. 


THE  ANCIENT  CATHOLIC  CHURCH 

From  the  Accession  of  Trajan  to  the  Fourth 
General  Council  (A.D.  98-451) 

By  ROBERT  RAINY,  D.D. 

Principal  of  the  New  College,  Edinburgh. 


Crown  8vo.    554  Pages.    Net,  $2.50. 


"This  is  verily  and  indeed  a  book  to  thank  God  for;  and  if  anybody  has 
been  despairing  of  a  restoration  of  true  catholic  unity  in  God's  good  time,  it 
is  a  book  to  fill  him  with  hope  and  confidence." — The  Church  Standard. 

•'  Principal  Rainy  has  written  a  fascinating  book.  He  has  the  gifts  of  an 
historian  and  an  expositor.  His  fresh  presentation  of  so  intricate  and  time- 
worn  a  subject  as  Gnosticism  grips  and  holds  the  attention  from  first  to  last. 
Familiarity  with  most  of  the  subjects  which  fall  to  be  treated  within  these 
limits  of  Christian  history  had  bred  a  fancy  that  we  might  safely  and  profit, 
ably  skip  some  of  the  chapters,  but  we  found  ourselves  returning  to  close  up 
the  gaps ;  we  should  advise  those  who  are  led  to  read  the  book  through  this 
notice  not  to  repeat  our  experiment.  It  is  a  dish  of  well-cooked  and  well- 
seasoned  meat,  savory  and  rich,  with  abundance  of  gravy;  and,  while  no 
one  wishes  to  be  a  glutton,  he  will  miss  something  nutritious  if  he  does  not 
take  time  to  consume  it  all." — Methodist  Review. 

"It  covers  the  period  from  98-451  A.D.,  with  a  well-marked  order,  and 
is  written  in  a  downright  style,  simple  and  unpretentious.  Simplicity,  in- 
deed, and  perspicuity  are  the  keynotes,  and  too  great  burden  of  detail  is 
avoided.  A  very  fresh  and  able  book." — The  Nation. 

"  The  International  Theological  Library  is  certainly  a  very  valuable  collec- 
tion of  books  on  the  science  of  Theology.  And  among  the  set  •*•*  good  books, 
Dr.  Rainy's  volume  on  The  Ancient  Catholic  Church  *  entitled  to  a  high 
place.  We  know  of  no  one  volume  which  contains  ^o  much  matter  which 
is  necessary  to  a  student  of  theology." — The  Living  Church. 

"  Of  course,  a  history  so  condensed  is  not  to  be  read  satisfactorily  in  a  day 
or  even  a  week.  The  reader  often  will  find  ample  food  for  thought  for  a 
day  or  more  in  what  he  may  have  read  in  two  hours.  But  the  man  who 
will  master  the  whole  book  will  be  amply  rewarded,  and  will  be  convinced 
that  he  has  been  consenting  with  a  company  of  the  world's  greatest  men, 
and  has  attained  an  accurate  knowledge  of  one  of  the  world's  greatest  and 
most  important  periods." — Christian  Intelligencer. 

41  As  a  compend  of  church  history  for  the  first  five  centuries,  this  volume 
will  be  found  most  useful,  for  ready  reference,  both  to  those  who  possess 
the  more  elaborate  church  histories,  and  for  the  general  information  desired 
by  a  wider  reading  public ;  while  the  temperate  presentations  of  the  author's 
own  theories  upon  disputed  points  are  in  themselves  of  great  value."— 
Bibliotheca  Sacra. 

"  Principal  Rainy  of  the  New  College,  Edinburgh,  is  one  of  the  foremost 
scholars  of  Great  Britain,  and  in  Scotland,  his  home,  he  is  regarded  by  his 
countrymen  as  the  chief  figure  in  their  ecclesiastical  life.  There  can  be 
little  doubt  that  this  recent  volume  will  enhance  his  reputation  and  serve  to 
introduce  him  to  a  wider  circle  of  friends." — Congregattonalist,  Boston* 


€l)e 


History  of  Christian  Doctrine, 

BY 

GEORGE  P.  FISHER,  D.D.,  LL.D., 

Titus  Street  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History  in  Yale  University* 
Crown  8vo,  583  pages,  $2.50  net. 


"  He  gives  ample  proof  of  rare  scholarship.  Many  of  the  old  doc- 
trines are  restated  with  a  freshness,  lucidity  and  elegance  of  style 
which  make  it  a  very  readable  book." — The  New  York  Observer. 

*'  Intrinsically  tlrs  volume  is  worthy  of  a  foremost  place  in  our 
modern  literature  .  .  .  We  have  no  work  on  the  subject  in  English 
eoual  to  it,  tor  variety  and  range,  clearness  of  statement,  judicious 
guidance,  and  catholicity  of  tone." — London  Nonconformist  and  Inde- 
pendent 

"  It  is  only  just  to  say  that  Dr.  Fisher  has  produced  the  best  His- 
tor\  of  Doctiine  that  we  have  in  English." — The  New  York  Evangelist, 

"  It  is  to  me  quite  a  marvel  how  a  book  of  this  kind  (Fisher's 
'History  of  Christian  Doctrine')  can  be  written  so  accurately  to 
scale.  It  could  only  be  done  by  one  who  had  a  very  complete  com- 
mand of  all  the  periods."  —  PROF.  WILLIAM  SANDAY,  Oxford. 

•'  It  presents  so  many  new  and  fresh  points  and  is  so  thoroughly 
treated,  and  brings  into  view  contemporaneous  thought,  especially 
the  American,  that  it  is  a  pleasure  to  read  it,  and  will  be  an  equal 
pleasure  to  go  back  to  it  again  and  again." — BISHOP  JOHN  F.  HURST. 

"  Throughout  there  is  manifest  wide  reading,  careful  prepara- 
tion, spirit  and  good  judgment," — Philadelphia  Presbyterian. 

41  The  language  and  style  are  alike  delightfully  fresh  and  easy 
.  .  .  A  book  which  will  be  found  both  stimulating  and  instructive 
to  the  student  of  theology." — 7"he  Churchman. 

"  Professor  Fisher  has  trained  the  public  to  expect  the  excellen 
cies  of  scholarship,  candor,  judicial  equipoise  and  admirable  lucidity 
and  elegance  of  style  in  whatever  comes  from  his  pen.     But  in  the 
present  work  he  has  surpassed  himself." — PROF.  J.  H.  THAYER,  o/ 
Harvard  Divinity  School. 

"  It  meets  the  severest  standard;  there  is  fullness  of  knowledge; 
thorough  research,  keenly  analytic  thought,  and  rarest  enrichment 
for  a  positive,  profound  s.nd  learned  critic.  There  is  interpretative 
and  revealing  sympathy.  It  is  of  the  class  of  works  that  mark  epochs 
in  their  several  departments." — The  Outlook. 

"  As  a  first  study  of  the  History  of  Doctrine,  Professor  Fisher's 
volume  has  the  merit  of  being  full,  accurate  and  interesting." 

—Prof.  MARCUS  DODS 

*• .  .  .  He  gathers  up,  reorganizes  and  presents  the  results  of 
tovestigation  in  a  style  rarely  full  of  literary  charm," 

—  The  s 


3nfernationaf  2$ecfo<jicaf 


CHRISTIAN  INSTITUTIONS. 


By  ALEXANDER  V.  G.  ALLEN,  D.D. 

Professor  of  Eccle  ;iastical  History  in  the  Episcopal  Theological 
in  Cambridge. 


Crown  8vo,  577  pages,  $2.50  net. 


"  Professor  Allen's  Christian  Institutions  may  be  regarded  as  tin  mos 
important  permanent  contribution  which  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Chirch 
of  the  United  States  has  yet  made  to  general  theological  thought.  In  a  few 
particulars  it  will  not  command  the  universal,  or  even  the  genera!  assent  of 
discriminating  readers  ;  but  it  will  receive,  as  it  deserves,  the  respect  and 
appreciation  of  those  who  rightly  estimate  the  varied,  learned,  and  independ- 
ent spirit  of  the  author." — The  American  Journal  of  Theology. 

"  As  to  his  method  there  can  be  no  two  opinions,  nor  as  to  the  broad, 
critical,  and  appreciative  character  of  his  study.  It  is  an  immensely  sug- 
gestive, stimulating,  and  encouraging  piece  of  work.  It  shows  that  modern 
scholarship  is  not  all  at  sea  as  to  results,  and  it  presents  a  worthy  view  of  a 
great  and  noble  subject,  the  greatest  and  noblest  of  all  subjects." — The  In- 
dependent. 

"This  will  at  once  take  its  place  among  the  most  valuable  volumes  in  the 
'  International  Theological  Library,'  constituting  in  itself  a  very  complete 
epitome  both  of  general  church  history  and  of  the  history  of  doctrines. 
.  .  .  A  single  quotation  well  illustrates  the  brilliant  style  and  the  pro- 
found thought  of  the  book." — The  Bibliotheca  Sacra. 

*'  The  wealth  of  learning,  the  historical  spirit,  the  philosophic  grasp,  the 
loyalty  to  the  continuity  of  life,  which  everywhere  characterize  this  thorough 
study  of  the  organization,  creeds,  and  cultus  constituting  Christian  Institu- 
tion. .  .  .  However  the  reader  may  differ  with  the  conclusions  of  the 
author,  few  will  question  his  painstaking  scholarship,  judicial  temperament, 
and  catholicity  of  Christian  spirit." — The  Advance. 

"  It  is  an  honor  to  American  scholarship,  and  will  be  read  by  all  who 
wish  to  be  abreast  of  the  age." — The  Lutheran  Church  Review. 

"  With  all  its  defects  and  limitations,  this  is  a  most  illuminating  and  sug- 
gestive book  on  a  subject  of  abiding  interest." — The  Christian  Intelli- 
gencer. " 

"It  is  a  treasury  of  expert  knowledge,  arranged  in  an  orderly  and  lucid 
manner,  and  more  than  ordinarily  readable.  .  .  .  It  is  controlled  by  the 
candid  and  critical  spirit  of  the  careful  historian  who,  of  course,  has  his 
convictions  and  preferences,  but  who  makes  no  claims  in  their  behalf  which 
the  facts  do  not  seem  to  warrant." — The  Congregationalist. 

"  He  writes  in  a  charming  style,  and  has  collected  a  vast  amount  of  im- 
portant material  pertaining  to  his  subject  which  can  be  found  in  ito  other 
work  in  so  compact  a  form." — '<l'te  Jinw  York  Observer 


Apologetics; 

Or,  Christianity  Defensively  Stated. 

By  the  late  ALEXANDER  BALMAIN  BRUCE,  D.D.. 

Professor  of  Apologetics  and  New  Testament  Exegesis,  Free  Church  College, 
Glasgow  ;  Author  of  "  The  Training  of  the  Twelve,"  "The  Humilia- 
tion of  Christ,"  "  The  Kingdom  of  God,"  etc. 


Crown  8vo,  528  pages,  $2.50  net 


Professor  Brace's  work  is  not  an  abstract  treatise  on  apologetics, 
but  an  apologetic  presentation  of  the  Christian  faith,  with  reference 
to  whatever  in  our  intellectual  environment  makes  faith  difficult  at 
the  present  time. 

It  addresses  itself  to  men  whose  sympathies  are  with  Christianity, 
and  discusses  the  topics  of  pressing  concern — the  burning  questions 
of  the  hour.  It  is  offered  as  an  aid  to  faith  rather  than  a  buttress  of 
received  belief  and  an  armory  of  weapons  for  the  orthodox  believer. 

' '  The  book  throughout  exhibits  the  methods  and  the  results  of 
conscientious,  independent,  expert  and  devout  Biblical  scholarship, 
and  it  is  of  permanent  value." — The  Congregationalism 

"The  practical  value  of  this  book  entitles  it  to  a  place  in  the 
first  rank." — The  Independent. 

"  A  patient  and  scholarly  presentation  of  Christianity  under 
aspects  best  fitted  to  commend  it  to  'ingenuous  and  truth-loving 
minds.'  "—The  Nation. 

"The  book  is  well-nigh  indispensable  to  those  who  propose  to 
keep  abreast  of  the  times." — Western  Christian  Advocate. 

"Professor  Bruce  does  not  consciously  evade  any  difficulty, 
and  he  constantly  aims  to  be  completely  fair-minded.  For  this 
reason  he  wins  from  the  start  the  strong  confidence  of  the  reader." — 
Advance. 

«'  Its  admirable  spirit,  no  less  than  the  strength  of  its  arguments, 
will  go  far  to  remove  many  of  the  prejudices  or  doubts  of  those  who 
are  outside  of  Christianity,  but  who  are,  nevertheless,  not  infidels." — 
New  York  Tribune. 

"  In  a  word,  he  tells  precisely  what  all  intelligent  persons  wish  t« 
know,  and  tells  it  in  a  clear,  fresh  and  convincing  manner.  Scarcely 
anyone  has  so  successfully  rendered  the  service  of  showing  what 
the  result  of  the  higher  criticism  is  for  the  proper  understanding  of 
the  history  and  religion  of  Israel." — Andover  Review. 

'•  We  have  not  for  a  long  time  taken  a  book  in  hand  that  is  more 
stimulating  to  faith.  .  .  .  Without  commenting  further,  we  repeat 
that  this  volume  is  the  ablest,  most  scholarly,  most  advanced,  and 
sharpest  defence  of  Christianity  that  has  ever  been  written.  Nc 
theological  library  should  be  without  it/' — 7iori $  Herald 


Christian  Ethics, 

By  NEWMAN  SMYTH,  D.D.,  New  Haven. 


Crown  8vo,  508  pages,  $2.50  net. 


•f  As  this  book  is  the  latest,  so  it  is  the  fullest  and  most  attractive 
treatment  of  the  subject  that  we  are  familiar  with.  Patient  and  ex- 
haustive in  its  method  of  inquiry,  and  stimulating  and  suggestive  in 
the  topic  it  handles,  we  ar»  confident  that  it  will  be  a  help  to  the 
task  of  the  moral  understanding  and  interpretation  of  human  life." 

—  The  Living  Church. 

"  This  book  of  Dr.  Newman  Smyth  is  of  extraordinary  interest  and 
value.  It  is  an  honor  to  American  scholarship  and  American  Chris- 
tian thinking.  It  is  a  work  which  has  been  wrought  out  with  re- 
markable grasp  of  conception,  and  power  of  just  analysis,  fullness  ol 
information,  richness  of  thought,  and  affluence  of  apt  and  luminous 
illustration.  Its  style  is  singularly  clear,  simple,  facile,  and  strong. 
Too  much  gratification  can  hardly  be  expressed  at  the  way  the  author 
lifts  the  whole  subject  of  ethics  up  out  of  the  slough  of  mere  natural- 
ism into  its  own  place,  where  it  is  seen  to  be  illumined  by  the  C.iris- 
tian  revelation  and  vision." — The  Advance. 

"  The  subjects  treated  cover  the  whole  field  o[  moral  and  spiruivJ  re- 
lations, theoretical  and  practical,  natural  and  revealed,  individual  and  social. 
civil  and  ecclesiastic  al.  To  enthrone  the  personal  Christ  as  the  true  conteni 
of  the  ethical  ideal,  to  show  how  this  ideal  is  realized  in  Christian  conscious 
ness  and  how  applied  in  the  varied  departments  of  practical  life— these  are 
the  main  objects  of  the  book  and  no  objects  could  be  loftier." 

—  7 "he  Congregationalist. 

"  The  author  has  written  with  competent  knowledge,  with  great  spiritual 
insight,  ana  in  a  tone  of  devoutness  and  reverence  worthy  of  his  theme. " 

—  The  London  Independent. 

*'  It  is  methodical,  comprehensive,  and  readable ;  few  subdivisions, 
direct  or  indirect,  are  omitted  in  the  treatment  of  the  broad  theme,  and 
though  it  aims  to  be  an  exhaustive  treatise,  and  riot  a  popular  ha- jdbook,  it 
may  be  perused  at  random  with  a  good  deal  of  suggestiveness  and  jrorit." 

—  77te  Sunday  School  Turcs 

"  It  reflects  great  credit  on  the  author,  presenting  an  exemplary  temper 
and  manner  throughout,  being  a  model  of  clearness  in  thought  und  term, 
and  containing  passages  of  exquisite  finish." — Hartford  Seminar  KccorC* 

"  We  commend  this  book  to  all  reading,  intelligent  men,  an  esped  U? 
to  ministers,  who  will  find  in  it  many  fresh  suggestions." 

1'KOl  KSSOR    A      I 


THE  CHRISTIAN  PASTOR  AND  THE 
WORKING  CHURCH 

by  WASHINGTON  GLADDEN,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

Author  of  "Applied  Christianity,"  "Who  Wrote  the  Bible?"  "Ruling 
Ideas  of  the  Preset^  Age,"  etc. 


Crown  8vo,  485  pages,  $2.5o  net. 


«« Dr.  Gladden  may  be  regarded  as  an  expert  and  an  authority  on  practi- 
„*!  theology.  .  .  .  Upon  the  whole  we  judge  that  it  will  be  of  great 
service  to  the  ministry  of  all  the  Protestant  churches." — The  Interior. 

"  Packed  with  wisdom  and  instruction  and  a  profound  piety.  .  .  . 
It  is  pithy,  pertinent,  and  judicious  from  cover  to  cover.  .  .  .  An  ex- 
ceedingly comprehensive,  sagacious,  and  suggestive  study  and  application 
of  its  theme." — The  Congregationalist. 

"  We  have  here,  for  the  pastor,  the  most  modern  practical  treatise  yet 
published — sagacious,  balanced,  devout,  inspiring." — The  Dial. 

"  His  long  experience,  his  eminent  success,  his  rare  literary  ability,  and 
his  diligence  as  a  student  combine  to  make  of  this  a  model  book  for  its  pur- 
pose. .  .  .  We  know  not  where  the  subjects  are  more  wisely  discussed 
than  here," — The  Bibliotheca  Sacra. 

"  This  book  should  be  the  vade  mecum  of  every  working  pastor.  Tt 
abounds  in  wise  counsels  and  suggestions,  the  result  of  large  experience 
and  observation.  No  sphere  of  church  life  or  church  work  is  left  untreated." 
—  The  (Canadian)  Methodist  Magazine  and  Review. 

"  A  happier  combination  of  author  and  subject,  it  will  be  acknowledged, 
can  hardly  be  found.  .  .  .  It  is  comprehensive,  practical,  deeply 
spiritual,  and  fertile  in  wise  and  suggestive  thought  upon  ways  and  mears 
of  bringing  the  Gospel  to  bear  on  the  lives  of  men." — The  Christian  A  ,- 
•vacate. 

"  Dr.  Gladden  writes  with  pith  and  point,  but  with  wise  moderation,  a 
genial  tone  and  great  good  sense.  .  .  .  The  book  is  written  in  an  excel* 
lent,  business-like  and  vital  English  style,  which  carries  the  author's  point 
and  purpose  and  has  an  attractive  vitality  of  its  own." — The  Independent. 

"  A  comprehensive,  inspiring,  and  helpful  guide  to  a  busy  pastor.  Ons 
f.nds  in  it  a  multitude  of  practical  suggestions  for  the  development  of  th» 
spiritual  and  working  life  of  the  Church,  and  the  answer  to  many  problem* 
that  are  a  constant  perplexity  to  the  faithful  minister." 

The  Christian  Intelligencer 


3nfern<rftonaf 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  SALVATION. 

By  GEORGE  B.  STEVENS,  Ph.D.,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

Dwight  Professor  of  Systematic  Theology  in  Yale  University. 


Crown  8vo,  558  pages,  $2.50  net  (postage  22  cents). 


"  The  book  is  a  great  work,  whatever  one's  own  dogmatic  opinions 
may  be,  or  however  one  might  wish  to  criticize  some  of  the  positions  taken 
by  Dr.  Stevens.  It  shows  mastery  of  the  subject,  breadth  of  view  com- 
bined with  the  minutiae  of  scholarship,  that  is  admirable.  It  should  have 
a  wide  reading,  and  it  can  do  much  for  this  transitional  time  of  ours,  when 
nothing  is  more  needed  than  the  reinterpretation  of  the  old  formulas  in 
the  life  of  to-day." — The  Examiner. 

"Professor  Stevens  has  performed  a  task  of  great  importance,  certain 
to  exert  wide  and  helpful  influence  in  settling  the  minds  of  men.  He  has 
treated  the  subject  historically  and  has  given  to  Christ  the  first  place  in 
interpreting  his  own  mission." — Congregationalist  and  Christian  World. 

"The  eminence  of  the  author  no  less  than  the  thoroughly  scholarly 
character  of  his  discussion  insures  to  his  book  a  place  in  every  complete 
theological  library." — Brooklyn  Daily  Eagle. 

"  This  is  a  book  of  marked  value.  There  is  evidence  of  good  thinking 
from  beginning  to  end.  The  author  has  a  clear  and  wholesome  way  of 
looking  for  the  truth.  He  understands  the  uses  of  the  historical  method, 
but  this  does  not  blind  him  to  the  discernment  of  some  truths  by  straight 
and  immediate  perception  or  intuition.  Familiar  enough  with  what  the 
modern  critics  and  theorizers  have  to  say,  he  does  not  lose  his  fine  poise  of 
spiritual  judgment  either  in  face  of  the  old  or  the  new.  He  is  in  no  sense 
a  controversialist.  He  is  simply  after  the  truth,  and  the  whole  truth." 

—  The  Standard  (Chicago). 

"The  subject  is  treated  historically  and  exegetically,  the  problems 
that  present  themselves  being  approached  inductively,  the  theories  of 
others  presented  with  reasonable  fulness,  and  the  discussion  kept  through- 
out on  an  objective  plane.  .  .  .  The  book  deserves  careful  study,  as 
a  whole,  and  is  suggestive  of  the  interest  taken  in  questions  of  soteriology 
to-day."—  The  Churchman. 


International  Critical 


on  tfye  ^olg  Scrlpturt0  of  tfye  (Dlfr  anl> 
2Ccm  (testaments. 


EDITORS'    PREFACE. 


THERE  are  now  before  the  public  many  Commentaries, 
written  by  British  and  American  divines,  of  a  popular  or 
homiletical  character.  The  Cambridge  Bible  for  Schools, 
the  Handbooks  for  Bible  Classes  and  Private  Students,  The 
Speaker's  Commentary^  The  Popular  Commentary  (Schaff), 
The  Expositor's  Bible,  and  other  similar  series,  have  their 
special  place  and  importance.  But  they  do  not  enter  into 
the  field  of  Critical  Biblical  scholarship  occupied  by  such 
series  of  Commentaries  as  the  Kurzgefasstes  exegetisches 
Handbuch  zum  A.  T.;  De  Wette's  Kurzgefasstes  exegetisches 
Handbuch  zum  N.  T.;  Meyer's  Kritisch-exegetischer  Kom- 
mentar;  Keil  and  Delitzsch's  Biblischer  Commentar  uter  das 
A.  T.;  Lange's  Theologisch-homiletisches  Bibelwerk;  Nowack's 
Handkommentar  zum  A.  T. ;  Holtzmann's  Handkommentar 
zum  N.  T.  Several  of  these  have  been  translated,  edited, 
and  in  some  cases  enlarged  and  adapted,  for  the  English- 
speaking  public ;  others  are  in  process  of  translation.  But 
no  corresponding  series  by  British  or  American  divines 
has  hitherto  been  produced.  The  way  has  been  prepared 
by  special  Commentaries  by  Cheyne,  Ellicott,  Kalisch, 
Lightfoot,  Perowne,  Westcott,  and  others ;  and  the  time  has 
come,  in  the  judgment  of  the  projectors  of  this  enterprise, 
when  it  is  practicable  to  combine  British  and  American 
Scholars  in  the  production  of  a  critical,  comprehensive 


EDITORS     PREFACE 

Commentary  that  will  be  abreast  of  modern  biblical  scholar- 
ship, and  in  a  measure  lead  its  van. 

Messrs.  Charles  Scribner's  Sons  of  New  York,  and  Messrs. 
T.  &  T.  Clark  of  Edinburgh,  propose  to  publish  *uch  a 
series  of  Commentaries  on  the  Old  and  New  Testaments, 
under  the  editorship  of  Prof.  C.  A.  BRIGGS,  D.D.,  in  America, 
and  of  Prof.  S.  R.  DRIVER,  D.D.,  for  the  Old  Testament,  and 
the  Rev.  ALFRED  PLUMMER,  D.D.,  for  the  New  Testament, 
in  Great  Britain. 

The  Commentaries  will  be  international  and  inter-con- 
fessional, and  will  be  free  from  polemical  and  ecclesiastical 
bias.  They  will  be  based  upon  a  thorough  critical  study  of 
i;he  original  texts  of  the  Bible,  and  upon  critical  methods  of 
interpretation.  They  are  designed  chiefly  for  students  and 
clergymen,  and  will  be  written  in  a  compact  style.  Each 
book  will  be  preceded  by  an  Introduction,  stating  the  results 
of  criticism  upon  it,  and  discussing  impartially  the  questions 
utill  remaining  open.  The  details  of  criticism  will  appear 
in  their  proper  place  in  the  body  of  the  Commentary.  Each 
section  of  the  Text  will  be  introduced  with  a  paraphrase, 
or  summary  of  contents.  Technical  details  of  textual  and 
'philological  criticism  will,  as  a  rule,  be  kept  distinct  from 
matter  of  a  more  general  character ;  and  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment the  exegetical  notes  will  be  arranged,  as  far  as 
possible,  so  as  to  be  serviceable  to  students  not  acquainted 
with  Hebrew.  The  History  of  Interpretation  of  the  Books 
will  be  dealt  with,  when  necessary,  in  the  Introductions, 
with  critical  notices  of  the  most  important  literature  of 
the  subject.  Historical  and  Archaeological  questions,  as 
well  as  questions  of  Biblical  Theology,  are  included  in  the 
plan  of  the  Commentaries,  but  not  Practical  or  HomileticaJ 
Exegesis.  The  Volumes  will  constitute  a  uniform  series. 


THE  INTERNATIONAL  CRITICAL  COMMENTARY. 

THE  following  eminent  Scholars  are  engaged  upon  the  Volumes 


named  below: 
Genesis 

Exodus 

Leviticus 

Numbers 

Deuteronomy 

Joshua 

Judges 

Samuel 
Kings 

Chronicles 

Ezra  and 

Nehemiah 

Psalms 

Proverbs 

Job 
Isaiah 
Isaiah 
Jeremiah 

Ezekiel 
Daniel 

Amos  and  Hosea 
Micah  to  Malachi 
Esther 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

The  Rev.  JOHN  SKINNER,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Old  Tes- 
tament Language  and  Literature,  College  of  Pres- 
byterian Church  of  England,  Cambridge,  England. 

The  Rev.  A.  R.  S.  KENNEDY,  D.D.,  Professor  of 
Hebrew,  University  of  Edinburgh. 

J.  F.  STENNING,  M.A.,  Fellow  of  Wadham  College, 
Oxford. 

G.  BUCHANAN  GRAY,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew, 
Mansfield  College,  Oxford.  [Now  Ready. 

The  Rev.  S.  R.  DRIVER,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  Regius  Pro- 
fessor of  Hebrew,  Oxford.  [Now  Ready. 

The  Rev.  GEORGE  ADAM  SMITH,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Pro- 
fessor of  Hebrew,  Free  Church  College,  Glasgow. 

The  Rev.  GEORGE  MOORE,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of 
Theology,  Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass. 

[Now  Ready. 

The  Rev.  H.  P.  SMITH,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Biblical 
History,  Amherst  College,  Mass.  [Now  Ready. 

The  Rev.  FRANCIS  BROWN,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  LL.D., 
Professor  of  Hebrew  and  Cognate  Languages, 
Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York  City. 

The  Rev.  EDWARD  L.  CURTIS,  D.D.,  Professor  of 
Hebrew,  Yale  University,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

The  Rev.  L.  W.  BATTEN,  Ph.D.,  D.D.,  Rector  of 
St.  Marks  Church,  New  York  City,  sometime 
Professor  of  Hebrew,  P.  E.  Divinity  School, 
Philadelphia. 

The  Rev.  CHAS.  A.  BRIGGS,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  Pro- 
fessor of  Biblical  Theology,  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  New  York. 

The  Rev.  C.  H.  TOY,  D.D.,  LL  D.,  Professor  of 
Hebrew,  Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass. 

[Now  Ready. 

The  Rev.  S.  R.  DRIVER,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  Regius 
Professor  of  Hebrew,  Oxford. 

Chaps.  I-XXXIX.  The  Rev.  S.  R.  DRIVER,  D.D., 
D.Litt.,  Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Oxford. 

Chaps.  XL-LXVI.  The  late  Rev.  Prof.  A.  B. 
DAVIDSON,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

The  Rev.  A.  F.  KIRKPATRICK,  D.D.,  Master  of 
Selwyn  College,  Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew, 
Cambridge,  England. 

By  the  Rev.  G.  A.  COOKE,  M.A.,  Fellow  Mag- 
dalen  College,  and  tha  Rev.  CHARLES  F.  BURNEY, 
M.A.,  Fellow  and  Lecturer  in  Hebrew,  St.  Johns 
College,  Oxford. 

The  Rev.  JOHN  P.  PETERS,  Ph.D.,  D.D.,  sometime 
Professor  of  Hebrew,  P.  E.  Divinity*  School, 
Philadelphia,  now  Rector  of  St.  Michael's  Church, 
New  York  City. 

W.  R.  HARPER,  Ph.D.,  LL.D.,  President  of  the 
University  of  Chicago,  Illinois.  [Now  Ready. 

W.  R.  HARPER,  Ph.D.,  LL.D.,  President  of  the 
University  of  Chicago. 

The  Rev.  L.  B.  PATON,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew, 
Hartford  Theological  Seminary. 


CnftcafCommenfarp. 


Ecclesiastes 


Ruth 


Song  of  Songs 
and  Lamentations 


St.  Matthew 
St.  Mark 

St.  Luke 
St.  John 


Harmony  of  the 
Gospels 


Acts 


Romans 


Corinthians 


Galatians 

Ephesians  and 
Colossians 

Philippians  and 
Philemon 

Thessalonians 


The  Pastoral 
Epistles 
Hebrews 

St.  James 
Peter  and  Jude 


The  Epistles  of 

St.  John 
Revelation 


Prof.  GEORGE  A.  BARTON,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of 
Biblical  Literature,  Bryn  Mawr  College,  Pa. 

Rev.  CHARLES  P.  FAGNANI,  D.D.,  Associate  Profes- 
sor of  Hebrew,  Union  Theological  Seminary, 
New  York. 

Rev.  CHARLES  A.  BRIGGS,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  Professor  of 
Biblical  Theology,  Union  Theological  Seminary, 
New  York. 

THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

The  Rev.  WILLOUGHBY  C.  ALLEN,  M.A.,  Fellow  of 
Exeter  College,  Oxford. 

The  late  Rev.  E.  P.  GOULD,  D.D.,  sometime 
Professor  of  New  Testament  Literature,  P.  E. 
Divinity  School,  Philadelphia.  [Now  Ready. 

The  Rev.  ALFRED  PLUMMER,  D.D.,  sometime  Master 
of  University  College,  Durham.  [Now  Ready. 

The  Very  Rev.  JOHN  HENRY  BERNARD,  D.D.,  Dean 
of  St.  Patrick's  and  Lecturer  in  Divinity, 
University  of  Dublin. 

The  Rev.  WILLIAM  SANDAY,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Lady 
Margaret  Professor  of  Divinity,  Oxford,  and  the 
Rev.  WILLOUGHBY  C.  ALLEN,  M.A.,  Fellow  of 
Exeter  College,  Oxford. 

The  Rev.  FREDERICK  H.  CHASE,  Norissonian  Pro- 
fessor of  Divinity,  President  of  Queens  College 
and  Vice-Chancellor,  Cambridge,  England. 

The  Rev.  WILLIAM  SANDAY,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Lady 
Margaret  Professor  of  Divinity  and  Canon  of 
Christ  Church,  Oxford,  and  the  Rev.  A.  C. 
HEADLAM,  M.  A.,  D.D.,  Principal  of  Kings  College, 
London.  [Now  Ready. 

The  Right  Rev.  ARCH.  ROBERTSON,  D.D.,  LL.D., 
Lord  Bishop  of  Exeter,  and  the  Rev.  RICHARD  J. 
KNOWLING,  D.D.,  Professor  of  New  Testament 
Exegesis,  Kings  College,  London. 

The  Rev.  ERNEST  D.  BURTON,  D.D.,  Professor  of 
New  Testament  Literature,  University  of  Chicago. 

The  Rev.  T.  K.  ABBOTT,  B.D.,  D.Litt.,  sometime 
Professor  of  Biblical  Greek,  Trinity  College, 
Dublin,  now  Librarian  of  the  same.  [Now  Ready. 

The  Rev.  MARVIN  R.  VINCENT,  D.D.,  Professor  of 
Biblical  Literature,  Union  Theological  Seminary, 
New  York  City.  [Now  Ready. 

The  Rev.  JAMES  E.  FRAME,  M.A.,  Associate  Profes- 
sor in  the  New  Testament,  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  New  York. 

The  Rev.  WALTER  LOCK,  D.D.,  Warden  of  Keble 
College  and  Professor  of  Exegesis,  Oxford. 

The  Rev.  A.  NAIRNE,  M.A.,  Professor  of  Hebrew 
in  Kings  College,  London. 

The  Rev.  JAMES  H.  ROPES,  D.D.,  Bussey  Professor  of 
New  Testament  Criticism  in  Harvard  University. 

The  Rev.  CHARLES  BIGG,  D.D.,  Regius  Professor 
of  Ecclesiastical  History  and  Canon  of  Christ 
Church,  Oxford.  [Now  Ready. 

The  Rev.  S.  D.  F.  SALMOND,  D.D.,  Principal  of  the 
United  Free  Church  College,  Aberdeen. 

The  Rev.  ROBERT  H.  CHARLES,  M.A.,  D.D.,  Profes- 
sor of  Biblical  Greek  in  the  University  of  Dublin. 


|ttimmti0irol  (Critical 


decided  advance  on  all  other  commentaries"  —  THE  OUTLOOK. 


DEUTERONOMY. 

By  the  Rev.  S.  R,  DRIVER,  D.D.,  D.Litt., 

Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew,  and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford. 


Crown  8vo.    Net,  $3  oo. 


"No  one  could  be  better  qualified  ihan  Professor  Driver  to  write  a  critical 
and  exegeticai  commentary  on  Deuteronomy.  His  previous  works  are  author- 
ities in  all  the  departments  involved;  the  grammar  and  lexicon  of  the  Hebrew 
language,  the  lower  and  higher  criticism,  as  well  as  exegesis  and  Biblical  the- 
ology; •  •  •  the  interpretation  in  this  commentary  is  careful  and  sober  in  the 
main.  A  wealth  of  historical,  geographical,  and  philological  information  illus- 
trates and  elucidates  both  the  narrative  and  the  discourses.  Valuable,  though 
concise,  excursuses  are  often  given." —  The  Congregation alist. 

"  It  is  a  pleasure  to  see  at  last  a  really  critical  Old  Testament  commentary 
in  English  upon  a  portion  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  especially  one  of  such  merit. 
This  I  find  superior  to  any  other  Commentary  in  any  language  upon  Deuter- 
onomy." —  Professor  E.  L.  CURTIS,  of  Yale  University. 

"This  volume  of  Professor  Driver's  is  marked  by  his  well-known  care  and 
accuracy,  and  it  will  be  a  great  boon  to  every  one  who  wishes  to  acquire  a 
thorough  knowledge,  either  of  the  Hebrew  language,  or  of  the  contents  of  the 
Book  of  Deuteronomy,  and  their  significance  for  the  development  of  Old  Tes- 
tament thought.  The  author  finds  scope  for  displaying  his  well-known  wide 
and  accurate  knowledge,  and  delicate  appreciation  of  the  genius  of  the 
Hebrew  language,  and  his  readers  are  supplied  with  many  carefully  con- 
structed lists  of  words  and  expressions.  He  is  at  his  best  in  the  detailed 
examination  of  the  text." — London  Athenaum. 

"  It  must  be  said  that  this  work  is  bound  to  take  rank  among  the  best  com- 
mentaries in  any  language  on  the  important  book  with  which  it  deals.  On 
every  page  there  is  abundant  evidence  of  a  scholarly  knowledge  of  the  litera- 
ture, and  of  the  most  painstaking  care  to  make  the  book  useful  tp  thorough 
students." —  The  Lutheran  Churchman. 

"The  deep  and  difficult  questions  raised  by  Deuteronomy  are,  in  every  in- 
stance, considered  with  care,  insight,  and  critical  acumen.  The  student  who 
wishes  for  solid  information,  or  a  knowledge  of  method  and  temper  of  the 
new  criticism,  will  find  advantage  in  consulting  the  pages  ot  Dr  Driver."  — 
Zion's  Herald. 


ulertiatimml  O^rtttcal 


"We  believe  this  series  to  be  of  epoch-making  importance':' 

—The  N.  Y.  EVANGELIST. 


JUDGES. 


By  Dr.  GEORGE  FOOT  MOORE,  D.D., 

Professor  of  Theology,  Harvard  University. 


Crown  8vo.    Net,  $3.00. 


"  The  typographical  execution  of  this  handsome  volume  is  worthy  of  the 
scholarly  character  of  the  contents,  and  higher  praise  could  not  be  given  it." 
—  Professor  C.  H.  TOY,  of  Harvard  University. 

"This  work  represents  the  latest  results  of  'Scientific  Biblical  Scholarship,' 
and  as  such  has  the  greatest  value  for  the  purely  critical  student,  especially  on 
the  side  of  textual  and  literary  criticism."  —  The  Church  Standard. 

"  Professor  Moore  has  more  than  sustained  his  scholarly  reputation  in  this 
work,  which  gives  us  for  the  first  time  in  English  a  commentary  on  Judges  not 
excelled,  if  indeed  equalled,  in  any  language  of  the  world."  —  Professor 
L.  W.  BATTEN,  of  P.  E.  Divinity  School,  Philadelphia. 

"  Although  a  critical  commentary,  this  work  has  ks  practical  uses,  and  by 
its  divisions,  headlines,  etc.,  it  is  admirably  adapted  to  the  wants  of  all 
thoughtful  students  of  the  Scriptures.  Indeed,  with  the  other  books  of  the 
series,  it  is  sure  to  find  its  way  into  the  hands  of  pastors  and  scholarly  lay- 
men."—  Portland  Zion's  Herald. 

"  Like  its  predecessors,  this  volume  will  be  warmly  welcomed  —  whilst  to 
those  whose  means  of  securing  up-to-date  information  on  the  subject  of  which 
it  treats  are  limited,  it  is  simply  invaluable."  —  Edinburgh  Scotsman. 

"  The  work  is  done  in  an  atmosphere  of  scholarly  interest  and  indifference 
to  dogmatism  and  controversy,  which  is  at  least  refreshing.  ...  It  is  a  noble 
introduction  to  the  moral  forces,  ideas,  and  influences  that  controlled  the 
period  of  the  Judges,  and  a  model  of  what  a  historical  commentary,  with  a 
practical  end  in  view  should  be."  —  The  Independent. 

"  The  work  is  marked  by  a  clear  and  forcible  style,  by  scholarly  research,  by 
.critical  acumen,  by  extensive  reading,  and  by  evident  familiarity  with  the 
Hebrew.  Many  of  the  comments  and  suggestions  are  valua^e,  whiit,  die 
index  at  the  close  is  serviceable  and  satisfactory."  —  j.  hiladelphia  Presbyterian. 

"This  volume  sustains  the  reputation  of  the  series  for  accurate  and  wide 
scholarship  given  in  clear  and  strong  English,  .  .  .  the  scholarly  reader  will 
find  delight  in  the  perusal  U  this  admirable  commentary."  —  Zion's  Herald. 


Jnfcrncxfionaf  Cnticdt  Commcnforj. 


'   Richly  hetfiful  to  scholar*  and  minister*   '-  -THE  PRESBYTERIAN  JANNER. 

The   Books  of  Samuel 

av 
REV.  HENRY  PRESERVED  SMITH,  D.D., 

Projesf"-  of  Biblical  History  and  Interpretation  in  Amherst  CoUege. 


Crown  8vo,  Net  $3.00. 

"Proiessor  Smith's  Commentary  will  for  some  time  be  the  standard 
work  an  Samuel,  and  we  heartily  congratulate  him  on  scholarly  work  s« 
faithiully  accomplished." — The  Athen&um. 

"It  is  both  critical  and  exegetical,  and  deals  with  original  Plebrew  and 
Greek.  It  shows  painstaking  diligence  and  considerable  research." — The 
Presby  teria  n . 

"  The  style  is  clear  and  forcible  and  sustains  the  well -won  reputation  of 
the  distinguished  author  for  scholarship  and  candor.  All  thoughtful  stu- 
dents of  the  Scriptures  will  find  the  work  helpful,  not  only  on  account  of  its 
specific  treatment  of  the  Books  of  Samuel,  on  which  it  is  based,  but  because 
of  the  light  it  throws  on  and  the  aid  it  gives  in  the  general  interpretation  of 
the  Scriptures  as  modified  by  present-day  criticism." — The  Philadelphia 
Press. 

"The  literary  quality  of  the  book  deserves  mention.  We  do  not  usually 
go  to  commentaries  for  models  of  English  style.  But  this  book  has  a  dis- 
tinct, though  unobtrusive,  literary  flavor.  It  is  delightful  reading.  The 
translation  is  always  felicitous,  and  often  renders  further  comment  need- 
less."—  The  Evangelist. 

"The  treatment  is  critical,  and  at  the  same  time  expository.  Conserva- 
tive students  may  find  much  in  this  volume  with  which  they  cannot  agree, 
but  no  one  wishing  to  know  the  most  recent  conclusions  concerning  this 
part  of  sacred  history  can  afford  to  be  without  it." — Philadelphia  Presby 
terian  Journal. 

"The  author  exhibits  precisely  that  scholarly  attitude  which  will  com- 
mend his  work  to  f,he  widest  audience." — The  Churchman. 

"The  commentary  is  the  most  complete  and  minute  hitherto  published 
by  an  English-speaking  scholar." — Literature. 

"The  volumes  of  Driver  and  Moore  set  a  high  standard  for  the  Old 
Testament  writers ;  but  I  think  Professor  Smith's  work  has  reached  the 
same  high  level  It  is  scholarly  and  critical,  and  yet  it  is  written  in  a  spirit 
of  reverent  devotion,  a  worthy  treatment  of  the  sacred  text."— PROF.  L.  W, 
BATTEN,  of  P.  E.  Divinity  School,  Philadelphia. 


3itfernaftonaf  Crittcaf  Commentary 


*A  detided  advance  on  all  other  commenta  zV'j."— THE  OUTLOOK 


PROVERBS 


By  the  Rev.  CRAWFORD   H.  TOY,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

Professor  of  Hebrew  in  Harvard  University, 


Crown  8vo.    Net,  $3.00. 


"In  careful  scholarship  this  volume  leaves  nothing  to  be  desired  Its  in- 
terpretation is  free  from  theological  prejudice  [t  will  be  indispensable  to 
the  careful  student,  whether  lay  or  clerical.*' — The  Outlook. 

"  Professor  Toy's  '  Commentary '  will  for  many  years  to  come  remain  a 
handbook  for  both  teachers  and  learners,  and.  its  details  will  be  studied  with 
critical  care  and  general  appreciation." — The  Athenaum. 

"  The  commentary  itself  is  a  most  thorough  treatment  of  each  verse  in 
detail,  in  which  the  light  of  the  fullest  scholarship  is  thrown  upon  the  mean- 
ing. The  learning  displayed  throughout  the  work  is  enormous.  Here  is  a 
commentary  at  last  that  does  not  skip  the  hard  places,  but  grapples  with 
every  problem  and  point,  and  says  the  best  that  can  be  said  " — Prc  <-byterian 
Banner 

"  Professor  Toy's  commentary  on  Proverbs  maintains  the  highest  standard 
of  the  International  Critical  Commentaries.  We  can  give  no  higher  praise. 
Proverbs  presents  comparatively  few  problems  in  criticism,  but  offers  large 
opportunities  to  the  expositor  and  exegete.  Professor  Toy's  work  is 
thorough  and  complete." — The  Congregationalist. 

"This  addition  to  'The  International  Critical  Commentary'  has  the  same 
characteristics  of  thoroughness  and  painstaking  scholarship  as  the  preceding 
issues  of  the  series.  In  the  critical  treatment  of  the  text,  in  noting  the 
various  readings  and  the  force  of  the  words  in  the  original  Hebrew,  it  leaves 
nothing  to  be  desired." — The  Christian  Jntelhgencer. 

"A  first-class,  up-to-date,  critical  and  exegetical  commentary  on  the  Book 
of  Proverbs  in  the  English  language  was  one  of  the  crying  needs  of  Biblical 
scholarship.  Accordingly,  we  may  not  be  yielding  to  the  latest  addition  to 
the  International  Critical  Series  the  tribute  it  deserves,  when  we  say  that  it 
at  once  takes  the  first  place  in  its  class  That  place  it  undoubtedly  deserves, 
however,  and  would  have  secured  even  against  much  more  formidable  com- 
petitors than  it  happens  to  have.  It  is  altogether  a  well -arranged,  lucid 
exposition  of  this  unique  book  in  the  Bible,  based  on  a  careful  study  of  the 
text  and  the  linguistic  and  historical  background  of  every  part  of  it." — The 
Interior. 

"While  this  commentary  is  called  'critical '  an8  is  such,  it  is  not  one  in 
which  the  apparatus  is  spread  out  in  detail;  it  is  one  which  any  mtelli 

fint   English   reader  can   readily  use  and  thoroughly   understand  " — 7~*« 
vangclist. 


utevuatioual  Critical 


AMOS  AND   HOSEA. 

By  WILLIAM    RAINEY    HARPER,  Ph.D.,  LL.D. 

Prqftssor  of  Semitic  Languages  and  Literatures  in  the  University  of  Chic*g». 


Crown  8vo.    Net,  $3.00.    Postage,  20  cents. 


"  His  book  combines  thorough  technical  scholarship  with  large  measure  of 
ethical  and  spiritual  insight,  and  we  think  his  Commentary  on  Amos  and  Hosea 
will  take  its  place  among  the  best  in  this  very  excellent  series." —  The  Outlook. 

"  It  is  unnecessary  to  say  that  in  scholarly  completeness,  Dr.  Harper's  volume 
ranks  with  the  best  of  the  International  Critical  Commentary  Series."  —  The 
Standard. 

"  The  commentary  is  remarkable  for  its  clear  analysis,  and  exhaustive  in  its 
minute  completeness.  It  furnishes  materials  to  the  student  from  which  he  may 
form  his  own  judgment  rather  than  seeks  to  impress  dogmatic  conclusions." 

—  The  Watchman. 

"I  think  it  safe  to  say  that  in  no  language  can  there  be  found  such  a 
scholarly  piece  of  work  on  the  two  important  prophets,  Amos  and  Hosea."  — 
Rev.  L.  W.  BATTEN,  Ph.D.,  D.D.,  Rector  of  St.  Mark's  Church,  New  York 
City,  sometime  Professor  of  Hebrew,  P.  E.  Divinity  School,  Philadelphia. 

"  Professor  Harper's  critical  position  is  that  of  sound  progressive  scholar- 
ship. He  possesses  also  the  gift  of  the  true  teacher  of  interesting  others  in 
his  subject.  The  volume  will  easily  take  its  place  as  a  most  important  com- 
mentary on  these  prophets."  —  Congregationalist. 

"  I  shall  have  pleasure  in  recommending  it  to  all  students  in  our  Seminary. 
This  book  fills,  in  the  most  favorable  manner,  a  long-felt  want  for  a  good 
critical  commentary  OP  two  of  the  most  interesting  books  in  the  Old 
Testament."  —  Rev.  LEWIS  B.  PATON,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Hartford 
Theological  Seminary. 

"  He  has  gone,  with  characteristic  minuteness,  not  only  into  the  analysis 
and  discussion  of  each  point,  endeavoring  in  every  case  to  be  thoroughly 
exhaustive,  but  also  into  the  history  of  exegesis  and  discussion.  Nothing  at 
all  worthy  of  consideration  has  been  passed  by.  The  consequence  is  that 
when  one  carefully  studies  what  has  been  brought  together  in  this  volume, 
either  upon  some  passage  of  the  two  prophets  treated,  or  upon  some  question 
of  critical  or  antiquarian  importance  in  the  introductory  portion  of  the  volume, 
one  feels  that  he  has  obtained  an  adequately  exhaustive  view  of  the  subject." 

—  The  Interior. 


$he  Jutevnaticuml  Cvftical  (Cmumeutavtj. 

"  We  deem  it  as  needful  for  the  studious  pastor  to  possess  himself 
ef  these  volumes  as  to  obtain  the  best  dictionary  and  encyclopedia" 

— THE  CONGREGATIONALISM 


ST.  MARK. 


By  the  Rev.  E.  P.  GOULD,  D.D., 

£o£r  Ptv/fssor  of  New  Testament  Extgesis,  P.  E,  Divinity  School*  Ftiitadelpkia. 


Crown  8vo.    Net,  $2.50. 


**  lu  point  of  scholarship,  of  accuracy,  of  originality,  this  last  addition  to  tu< . 
series  is  worthy  of  its  predecessors,  while  for  terseness  and  keenness  of  exegesis 
we  should  put  it  first  of  them  all."  —  The  Congregationalist. 

"The  whole  make-up  is  that  of  a  thoroughly  helpful,  instructive  critical 
«tudy  of  the  Word,  surpassing  anything  of  the  kind  ever  attempted  in  th.- 
English  language,  and  to  students  and  clergymen  knowing  the  proper  use  o<« 
a  commentary  it  will  prove  an  invaluable  aid."  —  The  Lutheran  Quarterly. 

"  Professor  Gould  has  done  his  work  well  and  thoroughly.  .  .  .  The  com 
mentary  is  an  admirable  example  of  the  critical  method  at  its  best.  .  .  .  Th(» 
Word  study  .  .  .  shows  not  only  familiarity  with  all  the  literature  of  the  sub 
ject,  but  patient,  faithful,  and  independent  investigation.  ...  It  will  rani, 
among  the  best,  as  it  is  the  latest  commentary  on  this  basal  Gospel." —  Th* 
Christian  Intelligencer. 

"  It  will  give  the  student  the  vigorously  expressed  thought  of  a  very  thought 
ful  scholar."  —  The  Church  Standard. 

"  Dr.  Gould's  commentary  on  Mark  is  a  large  success,  .  .  .  and  a  credit  to 
American  scholarship.  .  .  .  He  has  undoubtedly  given  us  a  commentary  on 
Mark  which  surpasses  all  others,  a  thing  we  have  reason  to  expect  will  be  true 
in  the  case  of  every  volume  of  the  series  to  which  it  belongs."  —  The  Biblical 
World. 

"The  volume  is  characterized  by  extensive  learning,  patient  attention  to 
details  and  a  fair  degree  of  caution."  —  Bibliotheca  Sacra. 

"The  exegetical  portion  of  the  book  is  simple  in  arrangement,  admirable 
in  form  and  condensed  in  statement.  ...  Dr.  Gould  does  not  slavishly  follow 
any  authority,  but  expresses  his  own  opinions  in  language  both  concise  and 
clear."  —  The  Chicago  Standard. 

"  In  clear,  forcible  and  elegant  language  the  author  furnishes  the  results  of 
the  best  investigations  on  the  second  Gospel,  both  early  and  late.  He  treats 
these  various  subjects  with  the  hand  of  a  master."  —  Boston  Ziorfs  Herald. 

"  The  author  gives  abundant  evidence  of  thorough  acquaintance  with  the 
facts  and  history  in  the  case.  .  .  .     His  treatment  of  them  is  always  fresh  and 
ly,  and  oftentimes  helpful."'—  2'he  New  York  Observer. 


*gltc  International  (jfaititat 


"  //  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  that  this  series  will  stand  firsi 
among  all  English  serial  commentaries  on  the  Bible" 

—  THE  BIBLICAL  WORLD. 


ST.  LUKE. 


By  the  Rev.  ALFRED  PLUflflER,  D.D., 

Master  of  University  College,  Durham.    Formerly  Fellow  and  Senior  Tutor  of 
Trinity  College,  Oxford. 


Crown  8vo.    Net,  $3.00. 


In  the  author's  Critical  Introduction  to  the  Commentary  is  contained  a  full 
treatment  of  a  large  number  of  important  topics  connected  with  the  study  of 
the  Gospel,  among  which  are  the  following :  The  Author  of  the  Book  —  The 
Sources  of  the  Gospel  —  Object  and  Plan  of  the  Gospel  —  Characteristics, 
Style  and  Language  —  The  Integrity  of  the  Gospel  —  The  Text  —  Literary 
History. 

FROM  THE  AUTHOR'S  PREFACE. 

If  this  Commentary  has  any  special  features,  they  will  perhaps  be  found  in 
the  illustrations  from  Jewish  writings,  in  the  abundance  of  references  to  the 
Septuagint,  and  to  the  Acts  and  other  books  of  the  New  Testament,  in  the 
frequent  quotations  of  renderings  in  the  Latin  versions,  and  in  the  attention 
which  has  been  paid,  both  in  the  Introduction  and  throughout  the  Notes,  to 
the  marks  of  St.  Luke's  style. 

"  It  is  distinguished  throughout  by  learning,  sobriety  of  judgment,  and 
sound  exegesis.  It  is  a  weighty  contribution  to  the  interpretation  of  the 
Third  Gospel,  and  will  take  an  honorable  place  in  the  series  of  which  it  forms 
a  part."  —  Prof.  D.  D.  SALMOND,  in  the  Critical  Review. 

"  We  are  pleased  with  the  thoroughness  and  scientific  accuracy  of  the  inter- 
pretations. ...  It  seems  to  us  that  the  prevailing  characteristic  of  the  book 
is  common  sense,  fortified  by  learning  and  piety."  —  The  Herald  and  Presbyter. 

"An  important  work,  which  no  student  of  the  Word  of  God  can  safely 
jieglect." —  The  Church  Standard. 

"The  author  has  both  the  scholar's  knowledge  and  the  scholar's  spirit 
Accessary  for  the  preparation  of  such  a  commentary.  .  .  .  We  know  of 
nothing  on  the  Third  Gospel  which  more  thoroughly  meets  the  wants  of  the 
Biblical  scholar."  —  The  Outlook. 

"  The  author  is  not  only  a  profound  scholar,  but  a  chastened  and  reverent 
Christian,  who  undertakes  to  interpret  a  Gospel  of  Christ,  so  as  to  show 
Christ  in  his  grandeur  and  loveliness  of  character."  —  The  Southern  Church- 
man. 

"  It  is  a  valuable  and  welcome  addition  to  our  somewhat  scanty  stock  of 
first-class  commentaries  on  the  Third  Gospel.  By  its  scholarly  thoroughness 
it  well  sustains  the  reputation  which  the  INTERNATIONAL  SERIES  has  already 
won."  —  Prof.  J.  H.  THAYER,  of  Harvard  University. 

This  volume  having  been  so  recently  published,  further  notices  are  not  yet 
available. 


^ntenmummt  Critical 


"For  the  student  this  new  commentary  promises  to  be  indispen* 
fable"  —  The  METHODIST  RECORDER. 


ROMANS. 


By  the  Rev.  WILLIAM  SANDAY,  D.D.,  LL.D., 

fj&dy  Margaret  Professor  of  Divinity,  and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford. 

AND  THE 

Rev.  A.  C.  HEADLAM,  M.A.,  D.D., 

Principal  of  King's  College,  London. 


Crown  8vo.    Net,  $3.00. 

«  From  my  knowledge  of  Dr.  Sanday,  and  from  a  brief  examination  of  the 
book,  I  am  led  to  believe  that  it  is  our  best  critical  handbook  to  the  Epistle. 
It  combines  great  learning  with  practical  and  suggestive  interpretation."  — 
Professor  GEORGE  B.  STEVENS,  of  Yale  University. 

"  Professor  Sanday  is  excellent  in  scholarship,  and  of  unsurpassed  candor. 
The  introduction  and  detached  notes  are  highly  interesting  and  instructive. 
This  commentary  cannot  fail  to  render  the  most  valuable  assistance  to  all 
earnest  students.  The  volume  augurs  well  for  the  series  of  which  it  is  a  mem- 
ber."—  Professor  GEORGE  P.  FISHER,  of  Yale  University. 

"The  scholarship  and  spirit  of  Dr.  Sanday  give  assurance  of  an  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  which  will  be  both  scholarly  and  spiritual." 
—  Dr.  LYMAN  ABBOTT. 

"  The  work  of  the  authors  has  been  carefully  done,  and  will  prove  an 
acceptable  addition  to  the  literature  of  the  great  Epistle.  The  exegesis  is 
acute  and  learned  .  .  .  The  authors  show  much  familiarity  with  the  work 
of  their  predecessors,  and  write  with  calmness  and  lucidity."  —  New  York 
Observer. 

"  We  are  confident  that  this  commentary  will  find  a  place  in  every  thought- 
ful minister's  library.  One  may  not  be  able  to  agree  with  the  authors  at  some 
points,  —7  and  this  is  true  of  all  commentaries,  —  but  they  have  given  us  a  work 
which  cannot  but  prove  valuable  to  the  critical  study  of  Paul's  masterly  epis- 
tle." —  Zion's  Advocate. 

"  We  do  not  hesitate  to  commend  this  as  the  best  commentary  on  Romans 
yet  written  in  English.  It  will  do  much  to  popularize  this  admirable  and 
much  needed  series,  by  showing  that  it  is  possible  to  be  critical  and  scholarly 
and  at  the  same  time  devout  and  spiritual,  and  intelligible  to  plain  Bible 
readers."  —  The  Church  Standard. 

"A  commentary  with  a  very  distinct  character  and  purpose  of  its  own, 
which  brings  to  students  and  ministers  an  aid  which  they  cannot  obtain  else- 
where. .  .  .  There  is  probably  no  other  commentary  in  which  criticism  has 
been  employed  so  successfully  and  impartially  to  bring  out  the  author's 
thought."  —  N.  Y.  Independent. 

"  We  hav-  nothing  but  heartiest  praise  for  the  weightier  matters  of  the 
commentary.  It  is  not  only  critical,  but  exegetical,  expository,  doctrinal, 
practical,  and  eminently  spiritual.  The  positive  conclusions  of  the  books  are 
very  numerous  and  are  stoutly,  gloriously  evangelical.  .  .  .  The  commentary 
does  net  fail  to  speak  with  the  utmost  reverence  of  the  whole  word  «f  G<xJ." 
The  Congregationalism 


International  Critical 


"This  admirable  series" — THE  LONDON  ACADEMY. 


EPHESIANS  AND  COLOSSIANS. 

By  the  Rev.  T.  K.  ABBOTT,  B.D.,  D.  Litt. 

Formerly  Professor  of  Biblical  Greek,  now  of  Hebrew,  Trinity  College, 

Dublin. 


Crown  8vo.    Net,  $2.50. 


"  The  latest  volume  of  this  admirable  series  is  informed  with  the  very 
best  spirit  in  which  such  work  can  be  carried  out — a  spirit  of  absolute 
fidelity  to  the  demonstrable  truths  of  critical  science.  .  .  .  This  summary 
of  the  results  of  modern  criticism  applied  to  these  two  Pauline  letters  is, 
for  the  use  of  scholarly  students,  not  likely  to  be  superseded." — The  Lon- 
don Academy. 

"  An  able  and  independent  piece  of  exegesis,  and  one  that  none  of  us  can 
afford  to  be  without.  It  is  the  work  of  a  man  who  has  made  himself  mas- 
ter of  his  theme.  His  linguistic  ability  is  manifest.  His  style  is  usually 
clear.  His  exegetical  perceptions  are  keen,  and  we  are  especially  grateful 
for  his  strong  defence  of  the  integrity  and  apostolicity  of  these  two  great 
monuments  of  Pauline  teaching." — The  Expositor 

">  displays  every  mark  of  conscientious  judgment,  wide  reading,  and 
grammatical  insight. ' ' —  Literature. 

"  In  discrimination,  learning,  and  candor,  it  is  the  peer  of  the  other  vol. 
umes  of  the  series.  The  elaborate  introductions  are  of  special  value."-- 
Professor  GEORGE  B.  STEVENS,  of  Yale  University. 

"It  is  rich  in  philological  material,  clearly  arranged,  and  judiciously 
handled.  The  studies  of  words  are  uncommonly  good.  ...  In  the 
balancing  of  opinions,  in  the  distinguishing  between  fine  shades  of  mean- 
ing, it  is  both  acute  and  sound." — The  Church. 

"  The  exegesis  based  so  solidly  on  the  rock  foundation  of  philology  is 
argumentatively  and  convincingly  strong.  A  spiritual  and  evangelical  tenor 
pervades  the  interpretation  from  first  to  last.  .  .  .  These  elements,  to- 
gether with  the  author's  full-orbed  vision  of  the  truth,  with  his  discrimina- 
tive judgment  and  his  felicity  of  expression,  make  this  the  peer  of  any  com- 
mentary on  these  important  letters." — The  Standard. 

"  An  exceedingly  careful  and  painstaking  piece  of  work  The  introduc- 
tory discussions  of  questions  bearing  on  the  authenticity  and  integrity  (of 
the  epistles)  are  clear  and  candid,  and  the  exposition  of  the  text  displays  a 
fine  scholarship  and  insight." — Northwestern  Christian  Advocate. 

"The  book  is  from  first  to  last  exegetical  and  critical.  Every  phrase  in 
the  two  Epistles  is  searched  as  with  lighted  candles.  The  authorities  for 
variant  readings  are  canvassed  but  weighed,  rather  t'.an  counted.  The  mul- 
tiform ancient  and  modern  interpretations  are  investigated  with  the  ex- 
haustr/r-,ess  of  a  German  lecture-room,  and  the  judicial  spirit  of  an  English 
court-r.  om.  Special  discussions  are  numerous  and  thorough." — Thg  Con* 
yegationalist. 


3nfem<tfiondi  Crtttcaf 


"/  Aar/^  already  expressed  my  conviction  that  the  Inter- 
national  Critical  Commentary  is  the  best  critical  commentary., 
on  tJte  whole  Bible,  in  existence."—  DR.  LYMAN  ABBOTT. 

Philippians  and  Philemon 


REV.  MARVIN  R.  VINCENT,  D.D. 

ftvftsser  oj  E'.'.".j:al  Literature  in   Union  Theological  Seminary,  New 


Crown  8vo,  Net  $2.00. 


"It  is,  in  short,  in  every  way  worthy  of  the  series." — The  Scotsman. 

"  Professor  Vincent's  Commentary  on  Philippians  and  Philemon  appears 
to  me  not  less  admirable  for  its  literary  merit  than  for  its  scholarship  and  its 
clear  and  discriminating  discussions  of  the  contents  of  these  Epistles." — DR. 
GEORGE  P.  FISHER. 

"The  book  contains  many  examples  of  independent  and  judicial  weigh- 
ing of  evidence.  We  have  been  delighted  with  the  portion  devoted  to  Phile- 
mon. Unlike  most  commentaries,  this  may  wisely  be  read  as  a  whole."— 
The  Congregationalist 

"Of  the  merits  of  the  work  it  is  enough  to  say  that  it  is  worthy  of  its 
place  in  the  noble  undertaking  to  which  it  belongs.  It  is  ful'  of  just  such 
information  as  the  Bible  -cudent,  lay  or  clerical,  needs;  and  while  giving  an 
abundance  of  the  truths  of  erudition  to  aid  the  critical  student  of  the  text,  i» 
abounds  also  in  that  more  popular  information  which  enables  the  attentive 
reader  almost  to  put  himself  in  St.  Paul's  place,  to  see  with  the  eyes  and  feel 
with  the  heart  of  the  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles." — Boston  Advertiser. 

"If  it  is  possible  in  these  days  to  produce  a  commentary  which  will  be 
free  from  polemical  and  ecclesiastical  bias,  the  feat  will  be  accomplished  in 
the  International  Critical  Commentary.  .  .  .  It  is  evident  that  the  writer 
has  given  an  immense  amount  of  scholarly  research  and  original  thought  to 
the  subject.  .  .  .  The  author's  introduction  to  the  Epistle  to  Philemon 
is  an  admirable  piece  of  literature,  calculated  to  arouse  in  the  student's  mind 
an  intense  interest  in  the  circumstances  which  produced  this  short  letter  from 
the  inspired  Apostle." — Commercial  Advertiser. 

"His  discussion  of  Philemon  is  marked  by  sympathy  and  appreciation, 
and  his  full  discussion  of  the  relations  of  Pauline  Christianity  to  slavery  are 
interesting,  both  historically  and  sociologically." — The  Dial. 

"  Throughout  the  work  scholarly  research  is  evident.  It  commends  itself 
by  its  clear  elucidation,  its  keen  exegesis  which  marks  the  word  study  on 
every  page,  its  compactness  of  statement  and  its  simplicity  of  arrangement." 
— Lutheran  World. 

"  The  scholarship  c.  the  author  seems  to  be  fully  equal  to  his  t  dertokmg, 
and  he  has  given  to  js  a  fine  piece  of  work.  One  cannot  but  se  that  if  the 
entire  series  shall  be  executed  upon  a  par  with  this  portion,  thel  tiai  be  lit- 
tle let*.  «.o  be  desired." — Philadelphia  Presbyterian  Journal. 


Jnfernaftondf  £rificaf  Commentary 


"  The  best  commentary  and  the  one  most  useful  to  the  BibU 
student  is  The  International  Critical" 

—THE  REFORMED  CHURCH  REVIEW, 


ST.  PETER  AND  ST.  JUDE 

By  the  Rev.  CHARLES  BIQQ,  D.D. 

Regius  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History  in  the  University  of  Oxford 


Crown  8vo,    Net,  $2.50. 

"  His  commentary  is  very  satisfactory  indeed.  His  notes  are  particularly 
Valuable.  We  know  of  no  work  on  these  Epistles  which  is  so  full  and  satis- 
factory."—  The  Living  Church. 

"  It  shows  an  immense  amount  of  research  and  acquaintanceship  with  the 
views  of  the  critical  school. " — Herald  and  Presbyter. 

"  This  volume  well  sustains  the  reputation  achieved  by  its  predecessors. 
The  notes  to  the  text,  as  well  as  the  introductions,  are  marked  by  erudition 
at  once  affluent  and  discriminating. " —  The  Outlook. 

"  Canon  Bigg's  work  is  pre-eminently  characterized  by  judicial  open- 
mindedness  and  sympathetic  insight  into  historical  conditions.  His  realistic 
interpretation  of  the  relations  of  the  apostles  and  the  circumstances  of  the 
early  church  renders  the  volume  invaluable  to  students  of  these  themes. 
The  exegetical  work  in  the  volume  rests  on  the  broad  basis  of  careful  lin- 
guistic study,  acquaintance  with  apocalyptic  literature  and  the  writings  of 
the  Fathers,  a  sane  judgment,  and  good  sense." — American  Journal  of 
Theology. 


NUMBERS 


By  the  Rev.  Q.  BUCHANAN  GRAY,  D.D, 

Professor  of  Hebrew,  Mansfield  College,  Oxford. 


Crown  8vo.    Net,  $3.00. 

"  Most  Bible  readers  have  the  impression  that  'Numbers'  is  a  dull 
book  only  relieved  by  the  brilliancy  of  the  Balaam  chapters  and  some 
snatches  of  old  Hebrew  songs,  but,  as  Prof.  Gray  shows  with  admi- 
rable skill  and  insight,  its  historical  and  religious  value  is  not  that 
which  lies  on  the  surface.  Prof.  Gray's  Commentary  is  distinguished 
by  fine  scholarship  and  sanity  of  judgment;  it  is  impossible  to 
commend  it  i.oo  warmly."  —  Saturday  Review  {London}. 


O.    THE 

UNIVERSITY 

V        * 


' 


FOURTEEN  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 


This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


or 


23Jan56CG 


IVUG 


tB^TjOSyl       nec'D  CD 


lAr'57T8 


LD  21-100m-2,'55 
(Bl39s22)476 


Geberal  Library^ 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


YC  406* 


ffiism 


